Why I would rather pray for the defence of democracy than welcome authoritarianism with open arms
‘Through your own fault you will lose the [political as well as spiritual?] inheritance that I have given you [at great cost and over many years]. I will enslave you to your enemies in a land [or to a system] you do not know.’ (Derived from Jer. 17:4)
We will all have heard the cry going up that democracy is at risk in America. But why does democracy matter so much when we know that the kingdom of God is supremely theocratic, and that the Lord Jesus will ‘rule the nations with a rod of iron?’ (Rev. 19:15, Ps. 2:9) Is democracy really such a useful tool to forward the purposes of God in the world?
Channel 4 recently broadcast a powerful documentary called ‘Trump – should we be scared?’ It concludes, ‘No, we should be terrified.’ This is very strong language – but it is certainly true that Trump has become explicitly illiberal, and is imperilling democratic accountability by whatever means he can. Given that we have seen the emergence of many authoritarian ‘strongmen’ in Western nations over recent years, I find it hard to better Winston Churchill’s comments on the subject at the end of the Second World War:
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried’ . . . (House of Commons, 11 November 1947, quoting an unknown source)
Although it is under great stress, I still believe democracy remains the best option for America, and that we should pray for its preservation. In this article, we explore why.
Equality: the fundamental notion that underpins democracy
The concept of Dēmokratia stems from combining two Greek words: dēmos (‘people’) and kratos (‘rule’) to indicate a ‘rule by the people’ or ‘people power.’ It emerged as a means of governance in Athens some five hundred years before Christ as born, in the form of three separate institutions: the Ekklesia, (a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy); the Boule, which was a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the Dikasteria, that is, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. This is the system that paved the way for all subsequent democracies.
Aristotle believed that, ‘Democracy arose from people thinking that if they are equal in any respect, then they should be absolutely equal’ – and that the opinions and desires of everyone matters when it comes to determining the shape and future of our nations. Thousands of years later, this definition continues to be affirmed – not least by Abraham Lincoln, and the American commentator Theodore Parker, who was passionate that democracy should be ‘direct-self-government, over all the people, for all the people, and by all the people.’
Different nations have obviously wrestled with how to put this into practice. We are all familiar with the hardships endured by British suffragettes, as they strove for the right to have their vote considered equal to that of a man.
Of itself, democracy by no means ensures good government. As we have said, Churchill considered it to be the worst form of Government – except for all the others. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, similarly suggested that ‘Democracy is [only] good because other systems are worse.’ Churchill, in fact, regarded it as an ‘insurance’ . . . an insurance against dangers from abroad, an insurance against dangers scarcely less grave and much nearer and constant which threaten us here at home in our own island.’ (From a speech given at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, as long ago as May 1909)
At its best, democracy allows the life of God to flow freely, whereas when authority is handed over to authoritarian, and often unscrupulous leaders, life tends to gets crushed under the weight of their selfish and toxic demands.
Even those who seek to rule under the righteous auspices of the government of God are not exempt from treading on those who think differently. Some of the practices and punishments that were carried out in Calvin’s Geneva, for example, would deeply shock people today, let alone the truly terrible tortures that the Spanish Inquisition inflicted on so many. I believe that today, in America, we are witnessing a determined attempt to push past the breaking point of traditional democratic organs of government in favour of a system imposed and insisted on by a strong but highly erratic leader.
If everyone has an equal vote, how is that democracy gives way to authoritarianism?
Embedded in the principle of democratic equality is the assumption that each one of us shares certain values with a goodly percentage of the electorate, and that we are all equally willing to live and cooperate as citizens together. Mukulika Banerjee examines this in an interesting post that draws on her experience working as an anthropologist in rural India. The truth is that not everybody exercises their right – and responsibility – to participate. When they do, one person’s allegiances often prove to be at complete variance to those of other person.
When I was seventeen, we held mock elections at school to familiarise pupils with the principles of the right to vote, and I gave a talk on behalf of a particular party. I then did a few afternoons of door-to-door visiting to meet voters in our constituency, which had been represented by a certain Mrs Pike for decades. I was astonished to meet one person who said, “Yes, I will willingly vote for your Mr Pick, because he sounds so like our dear Mrs Pike!” Other conversations revealed voters who had got completely the wrong end of the stick concerning the policies of the party that I was representing.
What on earth can one say on such occasions?! I did then what I suppose most people still do and contented myself by thanking them for the vote, and inwardly marvelling at the extraordinary things that do or do not going into making someone’s mind up as to who to vote for.
A functioning democracy requires a many-sided electorate who are prepared to engage with political issues, and to do so with open minds. Some people vote for the same party year after year, regardless of policy. We certainly need firm convictions – but not closed minds. Healthy debate as well as private deliberations are a precious and integral part of this. Sadly, although we have access to unparalleled swathes of information and knowledge, many people actually enclose themselves within the comfortable constructions of a small number of like-minded sources, blithely setting to one side anything that does not accord with their approved outlook. Not only does this constrict political debate, it also leaves people prey to unscrupulous media sources that choose to slant, manipulate, deny or omit altogether ‘inconvenient’ facts and truths. (i)
Of course, the lack of engagement by some leaves the door wide open to those with passionate views on certain matters, and many groups work very hard to ensure that their perspective is strongly represented in government. That’s the whole basis of lobbying, which Wikipedia describes as ‘a form of advocacy, which lawfully attempts to directly influence legislators or government officials, such as regulatory agencies or judiciary.’ As the renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, we should ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.’ Jesus Himself, together with His disciples, demonstrates the truth of her words in the best possible way!
But in a society where everyone has a voice, those who shout loudest – whether they be a small group, a carefully crafted media source or an algorithms – can bring about considerable change in the whole culture and values of a society. Britain was once regarded (rightly or wrongly) as a Christian nation, but many values that were once enshrined in law are no longer upheld by the vast majority of the electorate, and policy and law has changed in consequence.
The power of the loudest voice does not necessarily bring good to all, let alone show the way to the eternal Kingdom of God. Isn’t that what the enemy of our souls desires? He will shut down the good news of the Kingdom of God by any means possible, be that on the streets, in workplaces and schools, in the press, and even in the privacy of people’s own homes. (See this article from The Spectator for more information.)
There is no guarantee that the good things we possess in our present democratic inheritance will remain. In fact, I believe that in these days, the enemy is taking specific aim at democratic nations where the gospel has been freely preached, in order to impose strongman dictators who preach a different gospel, or even another faith altogether.
I have often referred to a prophecy given to my dear friend, Alex Buchanan, many years ago. He foresaw at time when the Lord would judge the leaders of Britain heavily, and put in their place ‘such rulers that shall bring the country to the very edge of complete destruction.’
For make no mistake, and as we wrote recently, God is sovereign. It is His prerogative to ‘depose kings and raise up others.’ (Dan. 2:21) He alone is ‘ruler of all the kingdoms of the earth.’ (2 Chron. 20:6)
As citizens of, and ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, what should the Church be doing?
It is deeply grievous that the Bride of Christ herself has opened the door to allow these things to happen. We have not only meekly followed along in the wake of the spirit of the age, but even become active proponents of it in some cases. The Church is appointed as ‘the salt of the world,’ and our job is not to preserve manmade systems but rather to preserve life, and to present the covenant that God desires to make with all men everywhere. But if the salt ‘loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?’ (Mk. 9:50)
So said Jesus. Mark tells us that He continued, “Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” (Mk. 9:50) What might that look like for us?
It certainly takes courage and understanding to maintain a divine perspective in today’s sceptical world, but we carry the flavour of God. ‘Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt?’ asked Job. (Job 6:6 KJV) There is so much that is ‘unsavoury’ and perhaps should not be eaten at all. But let’s at least live and pray in ways that demonstrate the lovely truths of God’s Kingdom. Let’s look upwards in reverence, inwards so that our hearts align with His priorities and wisdom, and outwards with love. God’s means and methods haven’t changed.
The Lord is acutely aware of the many autocratic rulers around the world who conspire to draw cultish attention to themselves and assert ungodly ideologies. He invites – yearns for – His people to look beyond immediate issues and crises to see both their cause their likely outcome. He raises up seers, prophets and evangelists, like Alex Buchanan and many others, to share what they are seeing and hearing, people who will speak up on behalf of truth, humility, and justice. (Ps. 45:4)
Democracy can only ever be a means to an end, a stopping place as we wait for the day when the Lord Jesus and His saints will come, and He implements His rule over the whole Earth. But He has already invested in us the extraordinary power and authority that comes by partnering with Him (not He with us!) in prayer.
Beloved, where shall I find those who will stand so strong and steadfast that they shall prove to be a wall against the enemy? Where shall I find those who shall yet be prophets in the land and mighty preachers of righteousness? Where shall I find mighty intercessors who will sweat and weep, if necessary, so that at all costs my will shall be accomplished in earth as it is in Heaven?
Pray for governments, that they may not kowtow unduly to particular groups and interests.
Pray for young people as they engage with politics for the first time, in an age where they are so impacted by social media.
Pray that the politics of love will triumph over narrow party spirit and the language, politics, and actions of hate.
(i) The most potentially individualising thing of all – people’s smart phones – have become the means by which influencers use our known viewing habits and political interests to target us with what they want us to believe, and draw us into certain behaviours.
May all initiatives to limit the damage this can do, bear fruit.
Photo by Arnaud Jaegers on Unsplash
0 Comments