The thin line between Fascism and Democracy

Democracy is often referred to as the “rule of majority”. To make matters worse, democracy is often known to start with elections. Having dabbled in the subject in my 2001 film “Secret Ballot”, I speak not from authority but as a seeker of truth who wanders hesitantly in and out of political issues. My life is dedicated to art, especially the art of filmmaking, partly because my understanding of Art is that it allows for no compromises. It follows that I resent politics because in my view, it is all about compromises. Politics is meaningless without compromise where art is meaningless with compromise.

It is with this contradiction, that I continue to struggle with the subject of democracy and politics in general. As an artist, I cannot allow my mind to be contaminated with compromises and anything ideological. In the same breath, I believe that an artist who does not engage with political matters is irresponsible. How can an artist remain silent in the face of injustice, persecution, dictatorship and discrimination? These are too often unavoidable by-products of politics. Hence, I write herein not from an authoritative standpoint but as an engaged and curious citizen who yearns to understand. While making Secret Ballot, I was preoccupied with a critical issue that informed albeit subconsciously, the basic thesis of the film; Elections are a milestone and not the point of departure in the democratic process.

This is how my conflicted journey began. A journey to understand what exactly is democracy? The generous readers of these lines will be disappointed when by the end, they find no answer to the question. I must confess that so far, I have not found the answer and it is out of this struggle and disappointment that I write these lines.

My first disappointment came when I looked up democracy in the Merriam-Webster dictionary; “government by the people especially: rule of majority… “ There was no mention of the opposition or the minority! My ignorance led me to the audacity of trying to devise what I believe should be the dictionary definition of democracy. Admittedly, a dictionary definition is by definition terse. Concision is key in a dictionary entry for a word but that should not result in misconception which is the inspiration of and in fact the title of this essay. So my unqualified attempt at manufacturing a dictionary definition of democracy for the sake of continuing my thoughts below will read something like this; Democracy: A form of government by the people through voting, where majority rule is curbed by the protection of minority rights and effectual challenge of the opposition.

Democracies are messy, slow and cumbersome. If a democracy is straightforward, swift and easy, it is in danger of being authoritarian at best, if not outright fascism at worst. There is no way the majority rule can undermine the rights of the minority and have any legitimate claim to being a democracy. While the minority cannot overrule the will of the majority, it must not be discriminated against or hindered in its very existence as a minority. If the majority rule is not challenged by an official opposition, usually those with the lesser vote count, it is authoritarianism disguised as democracy. As simplistic as it may seem, these three components, rule of majority, protection for minority and official opposition are integral and necessary even if some might not consider them as sufficient for a legitimate democratic system where individual freedom and collective well being is the goal.

Elections are not the point of departure for democracy but a milestone of a democratic system. Western powers have in effect turned many developing countries against democracy by hastily imposing elections upon societies that lacked democratic institutions and culture. The simplistic and patronizing approach adopted by western powers towards developing countries in equating elections and voting with democracy has been, and continues to be counter productive. What if the majority genuinely and freely vote for fascism? What if warlords have such a stranglehold on a society after years, decades or even centuries of despotism and authoritarianism, that only they can be the victors of any free and fair elections? What if the very first result of a majority victory in a given elections is the dissolution and disintegration of democracy itself? What happens if the majority votes to invalidate democratic values? If I were a learned historian, I would have dissected the rise of fascism in turn of the century Germany to make my point. Fortunately for my readers, I am neither a historian nor is there a lack of content to examine the monumental example that demonstrates the thin line between democracy and fascism.

Let me jump to some conclusions. The democratic process as somewhat alluded to above, is effectively a political discourse of interaction between civil, partisan, ideological etc. forces with free and fair access to voters to solicit their support. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of dissent validate democracy. We arrive at the second oldest profession in human history; politics. I don’t intend to demean either of these two professions as they can be honourable and serve an essential purpose for any civilization. Politics and the political discourse without the rule of law is meaningless. Corruption cannot be eliminated but in a society with true democratic aspirations, a system of checks and balances is devised to turn the fine line between democracy and fascism into an impenetrable wall of separation. A system of laws contains and limits the potential for corruption in any free society.

Accountability, openness, transparency, respect for the minority, an effectual mechanism of interaction with the opposition, policies of trust but verify, and equal opportunity for all sides of issues are integral to the sustenance of any democracy. The rule of majority is not democracy if the majority rules to undermine any of the fundamentals of civility and legality. The moment the foundational pillars of democracy are subject to election, democracy has morphed into fascism. The moment politics, ideology or partisan agenda supersede the foundational rules of democracy such as exposure to opposition, freedom of dissent, respect for the minority and accountability, we have authoritarianism disguised as democracy.

Democracy therefore is a process and the process is integral to the substance. That is why democracy is slow. Democracy is exposing the rule of majority to effectual challenge by dissent and opposition. That is why democracy is messy. Democracy is respect and protection for the minority, that is why it is cumbersome. Ultimately the rule of law is the foundation upon which a democratic system can accommodate constructive interaction between opposing ideals. With my layman’s approach and knowledge, I am beginning to imagine the democratic system to be more like a Rubik’s Cube. Every piece moves but limited to axes that are integral to the structure.

In so pondering, I ran into yet another question; What is the role of meritocracy in a democracy? What exactly is the meaning of a “representative democracy”? Are democracy and meritocracy separable? Can we have senators who abjectly deny scientific fact and resist knowledge, go on and make consequential decisions for the country? Can an elected head of state exercise his/her authority without reliance on expertise and facts? Let me put it bluntly, is democracy valid without being moved and informed by science? Can citizens vote on issues that require expertise and in-depth knowledge?

Isaac Asimov warns us of an interesting dilemma; “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge…’”. In an ideal democracy, meritocracy is engrained in the fabric of the system. Ethics and integrity are pre-requisites to elected public service. Facts cannot be rejected or denied based on partisan or ideological obligations. A functioning representative democracy may not require comprehensive knowledge or expertise from the delegates, but it obligates them to inform themselves and follow a process of considering the facts before deciding.

I may be veering off to territories beyond my competence if I claim the above to be anything more than my personal revelations, findings during my journey to discover what is democracy. These are not proclamations. These are what I gathered while trying to answer what seems to be the unanswerable when it comes to practice. While politics as the art of compromise is accommodated in a democratic system, the system itself is uncompromising by nature. Democracy cannot turn against itself just because one of its essential ingredients is the electoral system.

My journey of learning and discovery started with my procrastinations while making a film almost twenty years ago and I continue to grapple with a series of questions. How can I put my findings into practice when it comes to my allegiance to my country Canada, partly through my contributions to my community of Iranian-Canadians? I am not a politician. I have no partisan affiliations. I have no political aspirations. I have no time to do anything other than my struggles with the trials and tribulations of making films. Until recently, I was disengaged. Not out of indifference but out of respect for those engaged activists whom I assume to be qualified in what they do. Unfortunately I was disengaged to a fault. My fault was that I assumed that democracy will work without me… Until I reached a rude awakening.

I awakened to the fact that I don’t need to be involved in partisan politics to be engaged in the democratic process. My eyes opened to the fact that I can’t complain if I don’t take part in democracy. In my awakening, I realized that no matter how deeply I desired to avoid politics, it is part of the world I live in. As a filmmaker, I learned early on that I don’t need to be involved in politics to be engaged with political issues. In fact I found it my duty to be sensitive to the plight of my fellow human beings no matter who they are and where they come from. I may not want to be involved in politics but I am deeply engaged with political issues when it comes to democratic values. Therefore my calling as a citizen of Canada and member of the Iranian-Canadian Community for over thirty years, has become to stand up for fairness, openness, equality, transparency, accountability, meritocracy, civility, respect for the law, humanity and last but not least, democracy.

As I most likely will leave the reader disappointed in not saying anything new and not competently answering the question that I posed at the outset of this public introspection, I shall leave you with the words of George Orwell. An enlightened writer who understood intimately, the flaws and contradictions of modern society. How it applies to my small world and this latest turning point in my procrastinations, I leave it to my generous reader to decide.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” George Orwell, 1984