Centralization of power is the real danger

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Sept 22

RE: Tyranny of the majority is the real danger. Op-ed by Jennifer Asimoudis.  The Hamilton Spectator 15 Sept 22.

While I thoroughly enjoyed Jennifer Asimoudis’s article, I take issue with her on two points, one small, one large.  The small point is that she takes Henry Giroux altogether too seriously.  He’s from the planet Neptune.  The big point concerns her question, “Is not the real threat to democracy found in the tyranny of the majority?”

The expression “tyranny of the majority” is a rhetorical device of the minority.  Democracy per se is not threatened by temporary majorities on this or that issue.  To be sure, pure democracy can be dangerous.  By majority vote, the ancient Athenians ordered Socrates to be killed.  Luckily, neither Canada nor America are pure democracies.  The U.S. is a constitutional republic and Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

The word ‘constitution” means that there are some things a majority cannot touch, such as civil rights guaranteed by the Charter or the U.S. Bill of Rights.  You cannot by democratic vote deprive someone of the right of free speech, and neither can a legislature.    The structure of government, which is what a constitution is for, cannot be easily changed.  It can be by democratic processes, but there are arduous, and intended to be.

The real danger to democracy and to our rights is the excessive accumulation of power in one person or one party.  With too much power, the Charter, the Bill of Rights, constitutions themselves can become mere parchment guarantees.  The seizure of extraordinary powers by the government under the guise of a “pandemic emergency!” I think demonstrates the point.

In Canada, at the beginning of the pandemic, we saw an attempt by Justin Trudeau to suspend parliament for a year with him granted unlimited spending power.  Luckily, his was a minority government and cooler heads prevailed, but the Canadian constitution might have been suspended for who knows how long or even destroyed had Trudeau succeeded in his plan.  All by crying “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war.  Luckily Trudeau lacked sufficient concentration of power, and others were smart enough to say no.

In Arizona, a judge has removed a state office holder from office because the office holder participated in the January 6 demonstration in Washington, D.C.  An elected official is a democratic choice of the people, and a judge decided he had the power to override democratic election and the state constitution.  Judicial power is a threat to democracy in this case.  I don’t know where the judge thinks he gets the power; he just assumed it.  The excuse for removal was the 14^th Amendment disqualifying “insurrectionists” from holding office, except that that term referred to confederates, not MAGA Republicans.  The judge ought to be reversed on appeal, if there is one; and he’s inviting a constitutional crisis because what happens if enough people say “nuts to you!” as I would be inclined to do.  It would be less dangerous to democracy for the state governor to suspend the judge for incompetence, again just assuming he has the power that he pulled out of his nether regions, as the judge did.

And we mustn’t forget Mao Zedong’s adage that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

The treat to democracy isn’t the excesses of democracy, but an excessive concentration of power in the hands of one person or one party.  We also have to be alert to people just declaring they have the power, when they don’t.

-30-