The Racial Limitations of Democracy
Democracy is the practice of self-government by the people. It is the
rule of law instead of persons; of the majority instead of the minority
or individual. As a system both of government and social life it has
but recently been either widely accepted in theory or established in
practice. A short three hundred years mark its very real advance in the
modern world. Only during the past hundred years has majority rule been
accepted as desirable or possible among a very few of the more advanced
countries. If we examine the political map of the world we find that
the triumphs of democracy are limited to but a few nations. We may
generalize by observing that a very few nations have but recently
succeeded in making democracy work.
What part is democracy likely to play in various quarters of the world
during our present century? Are we to see, now that Europe and Asia
are torn from end to end by revolutions, a sudden adaptation of all
these backward peoples to the democratic method? All recognize that we
are just now going through one of the greatest of revolutionary periods
in history. Maybe the millenium of universal freedom and democracy is
even now at hand. Let us see.
The practice of political democracy to-day is practically limited to
two main groups of nations--the English-speaking and the Latin. Of the
latter group, Spain alone tarries in the Middle Ages. Besides these we
have Holland and the three Scandinavian countries, which, while ruled
by kings, are democratic in both thought and practice. In a previous
chapter we have described the pitiful surrender of the German people
to absolute monarchy and state socialism, and their recent trembling
efforts toward freedom, as well as the sad miscarriage of the attempted
democratic revolution in Russia.
Beyond the limits of Europe, the two Americas, and English-speaking
colonies over seas, there is little enough hope for the growth of
democracy anywhere in the immediate future. The most fulsome optimism
can not expect the Chinese republic to succeed in our day. For a long
time in the future, as in the past, the "white man's burden" is going
to include practically the whole of Asia and Africa.
The limitations of democracy are set by many considerations. These
involve first the state of biological evolution in which a particular
race finds itself; second, the particular history of the particular
country under discussion. The African Negro can not realize democracy
to-day because he is psychically, and hence morally unfitted for its
responsibilities. The cause here is biological. The German people are
the first cousins of the English, being much the same in blood. The
difference between the two peoples are not biological, but historical.
Democracy in practice requires certain mental and moral qualities. The
most outstanding among these are intellectual acumen and a knowledge
of public affairs. Among the moral essentials are a spirit of good
sportsmanship, a profound regard for the rules of common honesty, and
above all, a fine sense of personal honor. Democracy must be based
upon character. Every qualification we have mentioned necessitates a
large measure of economic freedom; for without this, the individual
is enslaved and driven in things political. They imply, also, freedom
from tyranny of intermeddling by any religious power. Unity of church
and state, or the interference in politics by a religious organization
for ulterior purposes, makes true democracy impossible. The individual
citizen must always have perfect freedom of political choice. For the
masses in any nation to acquire these qualities is to place that nation
in the very front rank of the world's political civilization.
We now come to the most important element of all. In any well ordered
democratic country there must be a high degree of unity in both the
thought and feeling of the people. There is a principle of mechanics
involved here. If the machine is to run at all, its parts must
function together properly. If it is to run smoothly, without mishap
of any sort, then those parts must have been most carefully fitted
and adjusted together. If a population is seriously divided along
lines of race, language, religion, or social classes, in just so far
is a working democracy made difficult. Given enough differences and
the machine breaks down. For instance, Switzerland is often cited as
a country where democracy works even though the people are divided
into three language groups. Nothing is more untrue. In Switzerland
the entire population is united because almost everybody uses two or
three languages in common instead of one. Religious differences among
the Swiss are not dangerous to democracy because church and state are
completely separated, and it is taken for granted that no church shall
meddle in the slightest degree in political affairs.
Any larger disunity robs a nation of its hope of democracy. Witness
the peculiar failure in the democratic effort in Russia, where the
fanatical sect of Bolsheviki has set up a dictatorship in the name of
the wage-working class alone. What a lesson can be learned from Poland,
where religious difficulties have recently resulted in bloody riots;
or in Italy, where Nationalists, Socialists, Communists and Catholics,
each organized into a party, have recently gone out seeking the blood
of one or more of the opponents. In this the famous words of Lincoln
forever come into mind. "A house divided against itself can not stand.
This nation can not endure half slave and half free. It will be all the
one thing or all the other." Democracy in America has been successful
hitherto because we have been enabled, first and last, at whatever
sacrifices, to preserve our national unity.
[Illustration: THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Where Country, Our Home, The Klan and Each Other are Secured]
Democracy is limited to those nations whose citizens possess these
peculiar and lofty qualifications of mind and character. It is limited
to nations which are blessed with unity and solidarity among its
people. It is further limited to nations which have grown into the
practice of democracy during long experience. Instead of asking what
nations and peoples are likely to fail at democracy, we had better
start by inquiring as to what few nations are fortunate enough to
possess all of these qualifications which, taken together, make
democracy possible.
Democracy, we shall all agree, can not develop among the Australian
bushmen. It will not develop among the gypsies. It will not develop,
for a long time, among the African Negroes. Democracy will grow slowly
among the white peoples of central and eastern Europe. It will probably
grow much more slowly among the brown and yellow peoples of Asia. We
can best advance the cause of democracy in our time by saving it and
developing it in those countries where it has been already pretty well
established. Surely the greatest possible service we can render the
cause of democracy among the peoples not yet wholly fitted for its
practice is to give them a high and striking example of its success
in our own country. The supreme battle for democracy in this our day
is taking place in the minds and hearts of American citizens. There
is no immediate cause for doubt and worry concerning the preservation
of democracy in Great Britain and France. There is cause for deepest
concern in our own country, whose democracy is threatened from every
side, by greedy and designing powers above, as by a great mass of
incompetent, unprincipled and undemocratic voters from below.