112 A Programmer’s Guide to the Mind
government. The leaders and laws are not the government. Rather, they
represent the government.
It is this second characteristic of generality which distinguishes a
democracy from a monarchy. In the latter, it is the monarch who is
important. He is the source of power. In contrast, a democracy places the
emphasis upon the office and not the person. The specific individual who
fills the position may change. For instance, the President of the United
States has a lot of power. However, this power comes from the position
which he holds and not from the individual himself. If someone else is
elected to the position, then the power is transferred from the old leader to
the new one. On the other hand, when a monarch is deposed, power is not
automatically transferred to the new king. He is often regarded as an
usurper, who has stolen the political mantle from its legitimate owner.
The principle of generality also
determines how leaders are chosen. A
monarch is chosen either by his parents
or by some select group of nobles and
advisors. In other words, specific people
choose a specific person. In contrast, the
leaders of a democracy are chosen in a
general way. The choice is based upon
the decisions of many people, voting in
an election.
Notice that I am not talking about
principles that change. Rather, I am referring to unchanging principles
which describe change and which are general enough to allow change—
solid connections between cause and effect. Suppose, for instance, that we
decide beforehand, perhaps through a constitution, that whoever wins an
election will be chosen as president. First, this principle includes time: the
event of „holding an election‟ is followed by the event of „choosing a
president.‟ Second, it is stated as a general principle: “Whoever wins the
election will be chosen.” While the person in office and his opinions may
change, the general principle of holding an election remains fixed. It does
not change.
I suggest that the health of a democracy can be determined by the state
of these two qualities. If both time and generality are present, then a
democracy will survive. If either of them are lost, then democracy will also
die. If we look at western society today, I suggest that we see many
symptoms of fading democracy: First, the sense of time is being lost. Many
items that are created turn themselves into „spatial‟ facts which cannot be
altered or removed. Politicians hold on to their positions, and attempt to
preserve the status quo. Bureaucracies are entrenched. Rules and
regulations accumulate. Second, the idea of generality is also fading away.
We elect our officials because of their personal charisma, and not because
of the general ideas and plans which they represent. We lose faith in the