| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Lee Harris: The relationship between original sin and democracy |
| 2005-09-17 |
| How do you keep any system of government from degenerating into an oligarchy? There is only one way by which this has been achieved historically, namely by the arrival on the scene of a religion that has been able to instill a universal ethical code into both the rulers and the ruled -- a code that exempts no one from the duty of acting honestly and impartially. Indeed, the closest any society can ever come to achieving the democratic spirit is through the dissemination of a religion that establishes one ethical law that is universally binding on both those at the top and those at the bottom of the social pyramid -- an ethical law that prohibits the high and the mighty no less than the lowly and humble from committing certain crimes and taking certain liberties. Does such a religion guarantee that the governing elite will not abuse its position? The answer is obviously, No. Yet a fragile reed is better than no reed at all; and to see the truth of this you need only to look at those societies in which the ruling elite had its own peculiar ethical standards, like the warrior aristocracies of the Greeks, the Arab conquerors, or the Japanese samurai. In these cases, the standard adopted by the few was diametrically opposed to the standard imposed upon the many. The few did as they pleased, living off the many who did as they were told. Even Aristotle argued that the suffering of the many was simply a precondition for the freedom of the few. Herein lies the enormous political value of those few religions that have imposed the same universal standard of ethical conduct on all men in all positions and of whatever background or ethnic variety. By virtue of insisting on ethical conformity to the same rules, a sense of a common humanity was created between those who had hitherto looked upon each other virtually as separate species. Yet this sense of a common humanity achieved by an ethical code is always subject to erosion by a natural human desire to elevate ourselves to a position of higher status than those of our fellows. St. Francis of Assisi gave up everything, but his successors quickly followed the path of least resistance and began to acquire prestige, status, and even entourages. Yet a religious code, once it has become established as an ideal, remains a powerful force, even when it is being dishonored daily by those who give it lip service. Out of such a neglected ideal springs the desire to take this ideal seriously again -- to reform the community that once lived by this ideal, but that has subsequently followed the way of all flesh. Perhaps that is why religious reformations have far more often permitted genuine human progress than have political revolutions. An oligarchy that reforms itself is preferable to an oligarchy that has merely deposed the oligarchy that previously held power. It was a great religious revival that swept away slavery in the nineteenth century, just as it was a series of great political revolutions that resurrected it in the twentieth. There is no quick fix to the human condition. The panacea of universal democratic reform cannot change the nature of things any more than the dream of a socialist utopia. If we are to change reality for the better, we must first be prepared to see it at its worst. And here, oddly enough, is where politics inevitably becomes delusional, and only religion manages to get it right. Politics selects a certain group and explains why they should rule over others; religion looks at us all and says that none of us can be trusted with power. The doctrine of original sin is the best prophylactic against the pretensions of any ruling class, and it is precisely those groups that have stressed this doctrine the most that have freed themselves from the tyranny of their betters. |
| Posted by:Mike |