March 24, 2005
OFTEN?:
Democracy's nasty surprises (Geoffrey Wheatcroft, March 25, 2005, International Herald Tribune)
Nearly 73 years ago one of the greatest democracies on earth held a general election under universal suffrage. None of several parties won an absolute majority, but one was the clear winner, doubling its vote to 37.4 percent to become the largest group in Parliament.That autumn, President Herbert Hoover was up for re-election and the Republican convention managers might perhaps have produced a satisfied voter from that faraway country, in the way a grateful Iraqi was flourished in Washington recently by the Bush administration. Not surprisingly, they didn't do so. The country was of course Germany, and the triumphant party was the National Socialists, led by Hitler.
That 1932 election showed that democracy often raises as many problems as it answers, a lesson we may soon learn again in the Middle East.
Ah, yes, how often elections have brought us a Hitler... Posted by Orrin Judd at March 24, 2005 9:01 PM
Wheatcroft's other example is an abomination. To think that the communist achievement of a third of the vote in Czechoslovakia was the result of unhibited democracy is to ignore the fact that the Soviet army occupied the country.
I have talked to a lot of Czechs, and I have yet to meet a single one that thought being a vassal of the Soviet Union was a good thing.
Perhaps someone reading this website can call me out on this. I would love to debate them, as would many of their countrymetn.
Posted by: Earl Sutherland at March 24, 2005 11:06 PMI really must object to calling Germany one of the greatest democracies on earth. Until the end of WW I it was a monarchy, wasn't it?
Posted by: jd watson at March 24, 2005 11:48 PMI'll go one further than you jd and point out that before the thrid quarter of the 19thc it wasn't even a bloody country.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at March 25, 2005 12:28 AMAh yes, but nearly five months ago one of the greatest democracies on earth elected George W. Bush, which proves the whole idea is terribly risky.
This line of argument adds up to saying democracy is a bad idea because if you give people freedom, they might blow it. And Mr. Wheatcroft is clearly hoping somebody is going to blow it.
Posted by: Peter B at March 25, 2005 6:29 AMIt's not the democracy that makes the U.S. great, it's the republic.
Posted by: Randall Voth at March 25, 2005 7:52 AMDEMOCRACY FROM A COLLECTIVISTS POINT OF VIEW. You just can't trust the people. Baaaaa! Moooo! Oinnnk! Cluuuck!
Posted by: Genecis at March 25, 2005 9:47 AMYes, that scarry democracy thingie. Thank God the EU "constitution" will slay that monster.
Posted by: Luciferous at March 25, 2005 10:18 AMA benevolent despotism is certainly more reasonable.