When democracy is believed to fail or is not vigorous enough to be defended, it will easily revert to the absolute rule of one person or family or a small omnipotent political or military body. This dictatorship will present strong arguments for its suspension or abolition of the democratic system. With these arguments it often conceals its fears of the participation in government of certain socioeconomic classes and of denominational, ethnic or linguistic groups whose presence it does not consider desirable, to say the least.

The conditions which are responsible for the outbreak of a civil or international war are very much similar to the conditions under which a dictatorship can come into being. The same exclusive attitude which motivates some individuals to aggress against fellow-citizens or other nations induces them to attack a democratic system for the sole benefit of a privileged minority, or to support such an attack.

No society is democratic because those in power allow the country to be ruled by politicians who have the same or similar political and denominational convictions as they have themselves. Just as freedom cannot be measured by the fact that it permits conformity, but only by the degree in which it allows deviation from the standards, so democracy cannot be measured by the fact that it permits politicians of a limited range of political creeds to rule, but only by the fact that it allows politicians of any political creed (in which people's moral right to personhood is respected) to rule when the people so prefer. It is not until the majority of the people elect representatives whose ideology significantly deviates from the beliefs of those in power that it may turn out that a country has never been a democracy. The powerful conspirators behind the screens who take on the rule of the country themselves in such a case, only remove the last resemblance of a democratic system. In their exclusionist opinion it had never been acceptable to permit politicians with certain political or denominational ideals essentially different from their own to have a major say in the country's affairs.

Democracy as a form of government in which the power is officially vested in nothing else than the majority of the citizens of a country is in itself a fertile soil for dictatorship. Altho almost all adults may have the right to vote and to be elected in such a system, any majority of voters has absolute power over any minority of voters, even when that minority represents up to 49% of the population. Many issues in democratic societies can be reduced to the question whether party or coalition A will be able to impose its own values on B, or whether party or coalition B will be able to impose its own values on A. It is in such an atmosphere of majoritarian competition that one party might simply forget that it needs at least 51% of the votes to impose its ideology on the nation, and if it happens to have powerful connections, or if it knows to operate strategically, a dictatorship is easily established, if only that of a state in which solely one party or coalition has and can have legal status.

Democracy as such does not guarantee inclusive equality, altho individual democratic countries may guarantee certain rights of certain minorities or near-majorities (such as both sexes) in their constitution. On the other hand, a political system based on inclusive equality (and the right to personhood in particular) would be a democratic one in that no minority could impose its own values on the majority of people. But it would differ from other democratic systems in that a majority could only override a minority where there is no other choice than uniformity, that is, where differentiation to accomodate the preferences or convictions of different groups or individuals is impossible. The decision in question must, then, not in any way depend on other decisions or systems which were or are somehow discriminatory. Only in such a society need democracy not degenerate into an institutionalized fight of exclusivism against exclusivism above which the threatening sword of dictatorship hangs forever.

Not seldom is the exclusive attitude of dictatorial rulers complemented by an exclusive attitude of those ruled over. In addition to the fact that the dictatorial rulers and the people ruled over may share a common fear of the same ideological, ethnic or linguistic group, or of the emergence of a certain social class, the desire of the rulers to rule may be complemented by the desire of the others to be ruled. Or, it may be complemented by their belief that it is normal that there is one or a small number of omnipotent leaders surrounded by an endless mass of obedient minions. Especially in societies which have a strong theodemonist organization it is believed to be natural that a higher level in the hierarchy has absolute power over lower levels, and that the man at the top of this theodemonical hierarchy is an infallible fuehrer in his field. In the ideology of these organizations even the supreme being itself is claimed to be an absolute and almighty ruler commanding reverent fear and submission from the believers. The male at the top of the human part of the hierarchy is said to be its (or 'His') present representative in the material universe: not showing deep respect for him and his orders is interpreted as disrespect for the omnipotent Mono 'Himself'. It is evident that such beliefs and such organizations, which glorify the concentration of power in one person or personified being, prepare common people to unconditionally surrender themselves to the dictatorial rule of potentates, not only in the religious organization but also in the political organization of the state. When there is a personal union between the ruler(s) of the state and the ruler(s) of the mono- or polytheist (temple) society concerned, or when these rulers cooperate very closely, the acceptance of religious, political or military dictatorship by those who adhere to the particular or a related religion will be very easy indeed. In submitting to the control of the dictator naive people are made to feel as if they were administered the first rights by the supreme being itself. Using the word god in the pragmatic sense of the most powerful leader(s) of the community of believers it is, perhaps, a fact that they are directed by (the) 'god'. However, these theonomous pawns do not realize that this does not mean that they would be directed by (the) supreme being itself in any way or in any sense.

The difference which exists between the inclusive attitude and the exclusive attitude is of fundamental significance for the establishment and maintenance of a democratic system which is not apt to be replaced by a dictatorship at some time. Any exclusivist belief, feeling or practise will contribute directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently to the emergence of the exclusivist attitude both among those in power and among those they are likely to lord it over, and thus to the possible emergence of a dictatorship. However solemnly human beings may profess democracy, it is the inclusiveness of their beliefs, feelings and practises which counts, not only in the fields which are clearly related to the institution of democracy but in all fields.

©MVVM, 41-57 ASWW

Model of Neutral-Inclusivity
Book of Fundamentals
The Norm of Inclusivity
Universal Ideals and Omnifarious Failures