By Carl S. Milsted, Jr.

Once upon a time, founders of what would become the United States of America fired “the shot heard around the world.” Our nation became the inspiration for many revolutionary movements. Today, the United States is spearheading a worldwide war on terror.

This presents a presents us with a problem. One person’s terrorist organization is another person’s revolutionary uprising. Any out-gunned revolutionary movement must resort to going after soft targets; pitched battles using uniformed soldiers are not an option. How do we distinguish between legitimate revolutionaries and bloodthirsty terrorists?

One way out of this dilemma is to simply eliminate the need for revolutionaries. This could be done by using the military might of a great power to take out the world’s most evil dictators. Such is the approach that the Bush Administration is pursuing in Iraq.

Alas, it is not working so well. Small demonstrations in favor of liberty have given way to mass insurgency against the U.S. and the democratically elected government of Iraq. Our actions have increased the amount of terrorism in Iraq—at least in the near term.

Should the Bush Doctrine be applied elsewhere, we can expect a similar reaction in many liberated countries. The reasons are twofold:

1. Many people resent invasions by foreign troops, no matter how benevolent the reason for invasion or how targeted the actions of the invading forces. This is simple patriotism, which feeds off some of the most primitive impulses of the human mind.

2. Majority rule is not always a good thing when the majority is malevolent or incompetent. Minority groups may well have good reasons to resist democracy. Dictators have followers, and not just cronies or those cowed into submission.

If we wish to stamp out dictatorships without providing inspiration for more terrorism, we must focus our attention on the second factor. We must realize that there are legitimate objections to democracy and deal with them. We must make the case for democracy so strong that aspiring dictators fail in their quest to take over shaky democratic countries, and that existing dictators peacefully give way to democracy as their support base withers. Outside military intervention should be used sparingly, if at all.

There are two common situations where majority rule is problematic.

1. In many countries the majority is ignorant of the importance of rule of law and certain basic economic principles. This is often compounded by a great disparity between rich and poor. In such a situation the poor often vote for demagogues who espouse crackpot schemes to promote social justice, schemes which destroy the economy leading to deeper poverty and support for right wing dictators by business and property owners. This often leads to a continued wealth disparity resulting in a vicious cycle of tyranny and poverty. Haiti is a good example.

2. In other countries there are deep ethnic and/or religious divisions. Majority rule can result in a license for the largest faction to exploit lesser factions. Think of Northern Ireland, or any country which has political parties based on religious or ethnic lines instead of on ideological lines.

The solution for the first problem is economic and moral education. The poor masses need to be informed of ways to achieve greater economic prosperity and equality while still allowing business and capital accumulation. They need to understand the difference between just wealth and unjust wealth when considering any transfer schemes. The rich need to be convinced of the evil of barriers to competition and bureaucrats of the evils of corruption.

Dealing with the second problem is more challenging. In theory, minority rights can be protected by a constitution which limits the power of the majority-elected government. In reality, a constitution is only as good as the people enforcing it.

Plurality-take-all voting as practiced in the United States and parliaments elected by proportional representation as practiced in many other countries can both put too much power in the hands of a single faction, one intent on governing at the expense of minority factions. Fortunately, there are other voting systems under study by political scientists which focus on minimizing overall dissatisfaction instead of maximizing the satisfaction of those who support the winner.

We would do well to promote such systems instead of simply promoting democracy. And I don’t mean sending in troops to make unstable countries rewrite their constitutions. We should start by applying these ideas at home, setting an example. We could apply them for electing our own government, or even officers in our clubs and other organizations.

Carl S. Milsted, Jr. is a senior editor for The Free Liberal.