Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 414, 30 May 1947, Page 5

Sir,-Is there, after all, any real distinction to be made between a political democracy and a cultural one? Mr. Priestley sees in the latter a danger that is actually inherent in both, for it is democracy itself that is open to corruption, | I believe it was Aristotle who first pointed out that a democracy may degenerate into an ochlocracy: a government in which the most enlightened section of society, inevitably a minority, is overwhelmed and crucified by the more. ignorant majority. Such government-of the majority, by the majority, for the majority-can become a travesty of true democracy. In normal times, provided that the majority is’ a tolerant and public-spirited one, the minority may fare well enough; but there is no guarantee that such conditions will ‘always prevail. In matters of everyday politics no less than in matters affecting our cultural life, it is undesirable that the few should be completely dominated by the many. Equally obnoxious, of course, would be the domination of the many by the few-though it is not difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it would be the preferred alternative. Mr. Priestley’s fears will find a sympathetic response among all thoughtful people. It is as well, however, to understand their true origin; the fact «that democracy, as we now know it, is undemocratic. It has been said that democracy can be made to work in no other way, that it necessarily involves the sacrifice of minorities for the good of the whole. But when these minorities may represent up to 40% of the community, the word "democracy" is surely

a misnomer.

DEMOS

(Lower Hutt). —