Democracy and the Human Individual

The relationship between democracy and the human individual is a rocky one at best. But there are senses of the term "democracy" that reflect on how democracy values the human individual apart from the current senses of the term "democracy" which grotesquely tear down the human individual. Democracy, in its ideological conception, has not intended to regress into social conformity, collectivism, and totalitarianism as it has nowadays, but the bedrock of these social tyrannies still persists in and is inherent in democracy. That said, there is something about the philosophy in its purest faith intentions that have actually been beneficial for humanity. But this is all said with severe caveats. Democracy is a severely problematic philosophical and governmental system and any truth or valuation it gives to man needs to be looked at from the fact that all errors must derive their ultimate source of existence from the God who is the source of all being. That said, there is a sense that has been regarding democracy that can be defended.

Fulton J. Sheen comments on Marx's understanding of democracy stating that "Marx knew the basis of democracy far better than many who live under its blessings." For Marx, "democracy is founded on the principle of the 'sovereign worth of the person'. 'This, in its turn,' he continued, 'is based upon a postulate, a dream and an illusion to Christianity, namely, that every man has an immortal soul." (Life is Worth Living, 56) Obviously, the conglomerated majority rule that is understood by today's word "democracy" is severely problematic, but the concept of democracy rooted in "people rule" that stretches to the valuation of the human individual is certainly in line with the Catholic social doctrine. The valuation of the human person as a soul is what is to be stressed when Abp. Sheen speaks of democracy. He is not speaking about "majority rule" but rather that principle of the sovereign worth of the person. The dignity that the person earns.

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn agrees in so much as there exists a classic concept of democracy as "rule by the people" and a later developed sense of democracy as "rule by the majority" whether direct or indirect. (Liberty or Equality, 6-7) The classic concept is the one that Abp. Sheen leans toward in that, strictly speaking, rule by the people does emphasize the sovereign individual and values the human being. The latter concept would be the warped format that the communists give to democracy in that it is "majoritarian rule". And this concept has become largely equated with democracy in all of its forms even as people presume themselves to mean the former. The Devil is in the details so to speak.

It's not that democracy necessarily intends to derail the human individual, though in Plato's concept, it can very easily turn into the majority merely imposing its will on the minority, it's that democracy has no clear meaning apart from the rule by the majority. If, for instance, another form of government, a monarchial form of government or aristocratic form of government, came in and valued individual liberties and the human person in his right worship of God, then that could be called a democracy under the first concept of the term. That is rarely what it means though. Democracy is generally caked with ideological concepts of majority rule, equality, and the people's rebellion against God. In his address to the Sillonists, Pope St. Pius X stated the following:

Our Predecessor of happy memory re-affirmed them in masterly documents, and all Catholics dealing with social questions have the duty to study them and to keep them in mind. He taught, among other things, that “Christian Democracy must preserve the diversity of classes which is assuredly the attribute of a soundly constituted State, and it must seek to give human society the form and character which God, its Author, has imparted to it.” Our Predecessor denounced “A certain Democracy which goes so far in wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people and aims at the suppression of classes and their leveling down.” ... The distinctive and positive aspect of Democracy is to be found in the largest possible participation of everyone in the government of public affairs. And this, in turn, comprises a three-fold aspect, namely political, economical, and moral. ... These three elements, namely political, economic, and moral, are inter-dependent and, as We have said, the moral element is dominant. Indeed, no political Democracy can survive if it is not anchored to an economic Democracy. But neither one nor the other is possible if it is not rooted in awareness by the human conscience of being invested with moral responsibilities and energies mutually commensurate. But granted the existence of that awareness, so created by conscious responsibilities and moral forces, the kind of Democracy arising from it will naturally reflect in deeds the consciousness and moral forces from which it flows. In the same manner, political Democracy will also issue from the trade-guild system. Thus, both political and economic Democracies, the latter bearing the former, will be fastened in the very consciousness of the people to unshakable bases. (Our Apostolic Mandate)

To insist that democracy alone can solve issues concerning justice is to break away from the Catholic social doctrine. It is to establish a faulty, Utopian, world of existence in which the human individual has superceded that of God. While there is much to praise in the understanding of democracy in its essential nature of valuing the human individual, the over-emphasis on the human person can become a mode of idolatry which is why democracy must be assisted by other forms of governance in order to maintain stability. Otherwise, democracy quickly collapses into totalitarian and anti-Christian rule.