Chapter XIV: 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.

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.