It is the received wisdom of the Western world that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, Democracy is “the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man”. The logic goes that Democracy ought to be the universal form of government and in turn our foreign policy should be geared towards the promotion, protection and in some cases installation of Democracy in other countries.  
 
However, this established view often glosses over the weaknesses of Democracy which we shall be discussing in a series of blog posts.

Today we look at the first troubling aspect of Democracy: its propensity to appeal to the politics of fear…

• Adolf Hitler in Weimar Germany
  • In the 1930’s Germany was a fearful country after a decade of economic strife and suffering from deep social fractures. In this culture the Nazi tactic of scaring people with the threat of the evil Jewish conspiracy, followed by claims that they alone could keep them safe, was a welcome offer of stability which drew many into voting for them.
• Senator Joe McCarthy in 1950s America
  • The iron curtain had descended and two opposing super-powers were gradually building-up nuclear arms. In 1950 in this climate of deep anxiety Senator Joseph McCarthy delivered the ‘Wheeling speech’ which declared that the government and media were riddled with communists. It is true that there were some communists in these institutions but the era of McCarthyism became known for its censorship and paranoia. While some contemporaries criticised his actions as an outright witch hunt (the period even inspiring Arthur Miller’s play ‘The Crucible’) he was returned to the Senate by constituents in 1952.
• George Bush - the Patriot Act
  • The attacks of 9/11 have left a permanent mark on the American psyche as America was the victim of the deadliest and most audacious terrorist attack in history. In this new era of fear unprecedented curtailments of civil liberties were described as vital to ensure adequate protection. The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 after been passed by wide margin in both the democratically elected Senate and House of Representatives by legislators eager to give reassurance to their shell-shocked constituents. Proponents of the legislation claim that they were necessary measures to defeat a new-global threat, while critics have held up the new act as a dangerous threat to civil liberties.

This isn’t to say that in a non-democratic political system fear would not have such sway on legislation. Neither does should it be claimed that hysteria is the automatic response of a democracy to attack - the calm, measured reaction of Norway’s government to the tragedy of the 22nd July shows as much. However, it would be unwise not to acknowledge this as a potential weakness of Democracy as when the general public is seized by fear, the democratic process demands that sympathetic legislation follows.

We shall be discussing the future of Democracy in India at our forthcoming debate on Tuesday September 27th, 2011 “Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel”.