Democracy needs civility

Principle matters and principle alone.

Principle is the only way rule of law can work. The perversion of that rule spurs a loss of faith in a country’s institutions perhaps even more destructive than the inconsistency itself. In place of national unity, sectarian and tribalistic identities take hold. The interests of these subgroups diminishes the interests of the country, and also of the individuality of each citizen.

As often as fringe radicals are the target of partisan attacks, they are in themselves a tiny subset of any major party’s base. At least, that is, when civil society is functional. What is concerning, however, is people closer to the centre taking on the distrust — both of core institutions and of their fellow citizens — promoted by the fringes. Radicalisation is indeed an issue, and ironically it is fed by over-reaching partisan attacks which portray an entire party representing the quite sensible beliefs of many people as being dangerous, or a threat to democracy, or traitorous, or fascistic. Radicalisation is also spurred by mainstream politics ignoring or denouncing justified and widely-held concerns of the populace, motivating voters to look elsewhere. Europe learned that lesson with the 2015 migrant crisis, with Germany and France offering examples. In this article, that cause isn’t the main focus.

Of course, there are few more egregious displays of contempt for the rule of law and the democratic process than coercive political violence. Some may raise an obvious caveat to condemnations of violence that might as well be mentioned here. In a non-democratic, totalitarian society, where the right of the individual to free expression is absent and peaceful methods do not exist, it is possible for force to be justified. In Western liberal democracies, this is not the case.

The destructive nature of violence has rarely been articulated as well it was by Martin Luther King Jr. MLK abhorred riots whilst also calling for American society to respond to the underlying issues which lead to them. The essential importance of the rule of law does not mitigate the necessity that people are afforded basic rights, or that elected officials are responsive to the desires of the populace, and vice-versa.

The necessity of justice, rule of law and societal trust is exemplified by the 2020 BLM and the Capitol riot. Yes, both.

Riots in the name of BLM killed more and did more property damage, whilst the Capitol riot was a far greater insult symbolically to perhaps the single most fundamental American institution. They’re comparable on at least one count. Both were perpetrated by people who had come to believe that a certain societal institution had failed them.

The relative severity of one versus the other, however, is easy to overemphasise for the purpose of partisan attacks which only worsen the societal distrust that spurred the unrest in the first place. Sometimes, it’s petty, as if intended on forcing a much larger group than that which condoned the violence into complete capitulation.

Violence should be condemned in such a way that if the party preferences of the perpetrators were removed or swapped there would be no change whatsoever in the response by the law and by public figures who ought to act like they care about their country and its continuation. Generally speaking, this is what happens, and it helps keep the fabric together.

If one is so adamant amount their cause and using violent methods to push it, they should be willing enough to face what should come as a result. Some of the worst and greatest figures in history took that in their stride. At the same time, that punishment should also be perfectly proportionate to the crime and not trumped up for semantic reasons.

Only by a principle of respect for the individual and for core democratic institutions, as well as a willingness to see the goodwill in one’s opponents, and a subsequent belief in non-coercive means, can unity and liberty co-exist.

That is a universal reality.

E pluribus unum.