By itself, democracy does not automatically guarantee human rights. Nor—although this is not the point of this article—is democracy specifically endorsed in Scripture. Democracy doesn’t appear in ancient Israel, although we may have some examples of groups choosing leaders, possibly by voting, in the Book of Acts, following the widespread Greek example. (Even then, though, Greek “democracy” meant the majority vote of free adult male citizens, always a minority of the population.) This does not mean that Scripture opposes democracy; my point is simply that it does not mandate it.

Democracy as majority rule

Although I may be quoted out of context, I do appreciate and value democracy. Accepting the decision of a majority is a peaceful way to resolve problems. If we are speaking of human rights, self-governance may be among them, as a form of “liberty.” Moreover, a truly democratic system motivates greater public ownership of and therefore commitment to making the political system work.

But our U.S. tradition sometimes speaks of democracy as an end in itself (e.g., “making the world safe for democracy”), when in fact spreading democracy cannot be the highest ideal of justice, trumping all others rights, even from a purely humanist standpoint.

Democracy as normally practiced is not simply self-rule (since autonomy taken to an extreme can deconstruct into anarchy), but majority rule. And majorities can become as tyrannical as individuals (such as kings) or minorities (such as oligarchs). One need look no further than the history of the United States itself for Jim Crow-era suppression of African-American rights in states controlled by whites who abused their (usually) majority status to keep complete control of the local political system. A majority of nations in the world today have significant ethnic minorities, and in a majority of cases those minorities face some prejudices.

“When a foreigner stays with you in your land, you must not mistreat them. The foreigner who stays with you must be for you just like someone from your country, and you must love them the same way you love yourself …” (Lev 19:33-34)

“Woe to those who write unjust laws …
So as to turn aside the justice due the needy
And rob the poor among my people of the justice due them …” (Isa 10:1-2)

Majority rule versus minority rights

The rule of law is necessary to limit majority choices in cases where majority rule curtails individual or group human rights. That is, while self-determination may be to some extent a human right, it must also be balanced against other human rights (including others’ rights to self-determination), especially rights to life and freedom more generally. If a majority curtails others’ religious freedom or other freedom of conscience, this is a more fundamental violation of human rights than is the failure to embrace a majority decision that curtails others’ human rights. (By curtailing minority rights, I am not thinking here of exposing minorities to majority culture or views, but of limiting their own views or expression thereof.)

How to balance such concerns and where to draw the line is obviously a matter of debate. If one expresses one’s personal beliefs by blowing up an airplane, one has certainly infringed on others’ rights and harmed the public interest. The same is true of falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater in the interests of demonstrating free speech or practicing female genital mutilation in the interests of honoring one’s traditional culture. Incendiary rhetoric that directly incites others to blow up airplanes likewise harms public interest.

In general, beyond cases of infringing on others’ rights many of us would prefer to err on the side of allowing freedoms rather than risking their curtailment. I believe that my freedom to share my faith, for example, does not infringe on others’ right to reject it. Because there is a range of speech practice between kindly sharing one’s faith and yelling fire in a crowded theater, however, consensus on precisely where to draw lines remains elusive. A Democrat may believe that a Republican’s views harm public interest and vice-versa, but ordinarily we do not legally curtail either one. (Ideally we might even hope for respectful dialogue to resolve issues, if that were possible in today’s polarized environment.)

Political Corruption

“Your rulers …each love bribes and pursues rewards.
They do not render justice for the orphan
Nor is the complaint of the widow allowed before them” (Isa 1:23)

“Woe to those who pronounce innocent the guilty for the sake of a bribe,
And turn aside justice for the innocent!” (Isa 5:23)

“Her leaders judge for a bribe,
Her priests teach for a price,
And her prohets tell fortunes for money …” (Mic 3:11, NIV)

What happens to the value of majority rule when shrewd academicians, politicians or media magnates learn that people can be manipulated by marketing information only very selectively? Do we speak then of a rule of the majority, or a rule by shrewd marketers? (Informed and cynical people in most mature democracies do not prove as malleable in practice as this summary sounds in principle, but propaganda is pervasive.) We all speak from given perspectives, hopefully from perspectives we believe are right; some selectivity is inevitable. But when does legitimate persuasion slide into covert manipulation and unfair caricaturization?

What happens when statespersons themselves no longer feel free considered choices based on detailed policy analyses because they are first beholden to opinion polls in turn shaped by what is marketed? They might remain in office in order to do good, while their ability to do good is curtailed by their concern to remain in office. If false propaganda is widespread, the system itself requires political appeals to what is essentially an often poorly-informed consumer market.

What is the difference between a political system run by such interests driven by shrewd marketing and one run by plutocrats whose wealth allows for bigger bribes? Is corruption of justice wrong only when the favor is monetary?

The social necessity of virtue

The system can function the way it was meant to only if a measure of trust can be established, and such trust requires some public consensus about virtue. Ancient philosophers often complained about rhetorical skills used to argue either side of a case equally; rhetoric, communication and marketing are amoral, capable of being employed in the service of truth or untruth, virtue or vice. When a society becomes cynical about authentic truth or virtue, its political system can easily become corrupted.

Working for human rights means more than working for majority rule. Majority rule can be perverted, like any other system, if it does not begin with a more fundamental recognition of human rights—which in turn rest on human worth and dignity. Humans are conspicuously finite and mortal, but Scripture confers on us a special dignity, that of being formed in God’s own image.

The language of “human rights” does reflect some of the Western individualist Enlightenment tradition. Nevertheless, Anabaptists’ emphasis on freedom of conscience preceded and probably informed this tradition. Moreover, if one defends the rights of minorities, one may speak of corporate as well as individual rights. One need not use the specific language of the Western philosophic tradition to support what promotes human flourishing; whatever language one uses, people are precious and matter. Certainly in Scripture, humans are the pinnacle of God’s creation and God invites us to love our neighbor as ourself.

In the Bible, all systems of government failed—from the anarchy of much of the judges period to the monarchy that followed it—due to human corruption. The Bible points toward true and ultimate justice in God’s kingdom. Both the Bible and subsequent history show that even purported theocracies in the meantime have also failed due to the corruption of the human purported agents of God. Insofar as we genuinely work for God’s kingdom, though, we must work for the welfare of what God values most—people formed in his image.