Messianic democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (May 2008) |
|
|
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008) |
| Part of the Politics series |
| Democracy |
| History · Varieties List of types |
|
Politics portal |
Messianic democracy is a neologism originally used by Jacob Talmon is his book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1951) to describe the "democracy by force" doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its philosophical descendants, as an effective tyranny that demotes democratic principle to rhetorical use only. Variants include totalitarian democracy and Jacobin democracy.
- Indeed, from the vantage point of the mid twentieth century the history of the last hundred and fifty years looks like a systematic preparation for the headlong collision between empirical and liberal democracy on the one hand, and totalitarian Messianic democracy on the other, in which the world crisis of to-day consists. - J. L. Talmon [1]
In recent years the term has seen some increased use among anti Iraq War activists to refer to the United States' stated proclamations for war as self-serving rhetoric, thinly disguised as having philosophical basis. The term further implies that the holders of such doctrines view themselves as self-appointed arbiters of good and evil, entirely above the laws of men. The term connotes the direct cultural implications of states that assume a posture and doctrine of superiour culture and purpose and asserts that a very wide religious, philosophical, and moral divide exists between genuine universal principles and the pugilistic foundations of a 'democracy by force' doctrine.
The term is used to assert that claims of 'establishing liberty and freedom through the use of military force' are analogous to other overly-zealous doctrines of salvation by submission to a claimed authority. Hence the basis for "peace" critics claim, is simply a submission to authority —not a principle which advocates of freedom often argue. (i.e. Pax Romana, Pax Americana, etc.) The implied outcome of such doctrines, their critics claim, are proof of its truth — that societies which make such claims are more often dismissive of other societies and cultures, they hold the interests and will of foreign people in disregard, and further contradict themselves in terms of its original moral premises for war, as compared to latter ones. These contradiction represents both a strategic and philosophical weakness at its core of the "doctrine", and represents a moral decline among those who hold to its view.
Critiques of the political rhetoric of the current War on Terrorism and its attached Iraq War, have typically compared these doctrines to those of the crusades, which, from a perspective of history, tended more toward seeking the destruction of infidel non-believers rather than their salvation. Hence the messianic democracy term implies the hypocrisy of democracy by force doctrines, which despite assuming the full rhetoric and stature of a self-appointed savior, but can only loosely or indirectly allude to the principles of messianic guidance and peace. In the context of the United States, it asserts the hypocrisy of those who support the wholesale use of war, while claiming to uphold the message of Jesus (perhaps basing this view on a common misinterpretation of the quote "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.")[citation needed]
