Political Science
Democracy vs. Liberty: The Telos of Government
Document Type
Oral Presentation
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Subject Area
Political Science
Start Date
13-4-2018 10:30 AM
End Date
13-4-2018 11:45 AM
Sponsor
Thomas Strunk (Xavier University)
Description
Democracies are known for being relatively stable and for ensuring freedom for their citizens. However, those assumptions are called into question by the various failures of modern democracies to both maintain authority and enshrine liberty. By comparing the Roman Republic (arguably the world’s longest-lived democratic government) with several failed modern democracies, several issues regarding different institutional approaches to liberty come to light. The Roman Republic produced a free and democratic society, but its freedom must be qualified. Of the two types of freedom, freedom from tyranny (negative freedom) and freedom to participate in government (positive freedom), the Republic placed an emphasis on the former and kept the latter somewhat restricted. The modern cases of Zimbabwe and Cambodia demonstrate democracy’s potential weakness in the face of demagoguery and the tyranny of the majority. These problems seem exacerbated, if not caused, by an excessive emphasis on the freedom to participate in government, to the detriment of freedom from tyranny. Aristotle and Mill provide a solution by shifting the purpose of government from freedom to virtue. A virtuous government is maintained by virtuous citizens, but they cannot be forced to live excellent lives; negative freedom is necessary for citizens to achieve virtue. Positive freedom, though it may satisfy our desire for political efficacy, does not ultimately create a good government. Therefore, while negative freedom is a necessary prerequisite for a good government, it ought not be the highest purpose of democracy.
Democracy vs. Liberty: The Telos of Government
Indianapolis, IN
Democracies are known for being relatively stable and for ensuring freedom for their citizens. However, those assumptions are called into question by the various failures of modern democracies to both maintain authority and enshrine liberty. By comparing the Roman Republic (arguably the world’s longest-lived democratic government) with several failed modern democracies, several issues regarding different institutional approaches to liberty come to light. The Roman Republic produced a free and democratic society, but its freedom must be qualified. Of the two types of freedom, freedom from tyranny (negative freedom) and freedom to participate in government (positive freedom), the Republic placed an emphasis on the former and kept the latter somewhat restricted. The modern cases of Zimbabwe and Cambodia demonstrate democracy’s potential weakness in the face of demagoguery and the tyranny of the majority. These problems seem exacerbated, if not caused, by an excessive emphasis on the freedom to participate in government, to the detriment of freedom from tyranny. Aristotle and Mill provide a solution by shifting the purpose of government from freedom to virtue. A virtuous government is maintained by virtuous citizens, but they cannot be forced to live excellent lives; negative freedom is necessary for citizens to achieve virtue. Positive freedom, though it may satisfy our desire for political efficacy, does not ultimately create a good government. Therefore, while negative freedom is a necessary prerequisite for a good government, it ought not be the highest purpose of democracy.