By John Borst Past President, Rotary club of Dryden, ON
Writing in the Washington Post, December 29, 2016, Fareed Zakaria, author of “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy” (Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997) has a very challenging statement involving Rotary’s role in a democracy.
The Founding Fathers were skeptical of democracy and conceived of America as a republic to mitigate some of the dangers of illiberal democracy. The Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, state governments and the Senate are all bulwarks against majoritarianism. But the United States also developed a democratic culture, formed in large part by a series of informal buffers that worked in similar ways. Alexis de Tocqueville called them “associations” — meaning nongovernmental groups such as choir societies, rotary clubs and professional groups — and argued that they acted to “weaken the moral empire of the majority.” (emphasis mine) Alexander Hamilton felt that ministers, lawyers and other professionals would be the “impartial arbiters” of American democracy, ensuring that rather than narrow, special interests, the society and its government would focus on the national interest.
In 2014 President Barack Obama succinctly described the problem of comprehending America’s liberal democracy when he said, “Alexis de Tocqueville, that great icon of France who chronicled our American democracy, wrote even as we marvel at our freedoms there is nothing harder than learning how to use our freedoms.”
With the specter of “majoritanianism on the horizon in America, a spate of articles have appeared, reminding us of the protections a liberal democracy demands for the minority. [See for example “Majority Shouldn’t Rule” (Jon Huntsman, Joseph Lieberman, U S News, Aug. 9, 2016)]
How, I wonder is Rotary as an institution of individual members and clubs to operationalize the concept of being a “bulwark” against majoritarianism? This is especially difficult when the prevailing belief is that Rotarians are to refrain from “politics” at all cost.
Note too, both De Tocqueville and Zakaria are not just talking about Rotary but “associations” as bulwarks. This includes Lions, Kiwanis, Toastmasters and so forth; what I have termed ‘Rotarianism’ in the title.
Putting the idea into practice is a challenge, however.
How would we “protect the press”? What collectively would that mean doing? For example, a CNN reporter was savaged unnecessarily by the POTUS-elect at his first news conference and the other journalists did not come to his aid. See Columbia Journalism Review “Trump berated a CNN reporter, and fellow journalists missed an opportunity”; January 11, 2017)
Who would speak on our behalf reminding the POTUS that in a liberal democracy even the POTUS is not free to deny a reporter a question? Who should remind him that when he says to a CNN reporter “No! Not you. No! Your organization is terrible,” he is undermining and intimidating all members of the press corps and in doing so he has changed America from a liberal democracy to an illiberal one.
A majoritarian Congress is also doing the same when it changes, what Zakaria terms the “norms and practices” of America’s democracy. For example when the Republican House and Senate refused to even consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court they violated the principles of “cooperation between political majorities and minorities” and the concept of “compromise” both of which underlay the concept of a liberal democracy.
Frankly, in the America of today, I see no possibility that Rotary will or even knows how it can act to “weaken the moral empire of the majority.” Or remain in Alexander Hamilton’s words, “‘impartial arbiters’ of American democracy” so as to ensure that “society and its government would focus on the national interest.”
It is not as if Rotary has not faced such a dilemma in the past. Victoria de Grazia, in Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance through Twentieth-Century Europe describes how the 42 Rotary clubs in Germany were abolished by December 1937, followed by dozens of others in countries allied with the Nazis such as Romania, and Czechoslovakia. (page, 71).
Finally, with Mexico and Mexicans a dominant focus of the POTUS-elect’s stated agenda, it is interesting to consider the role of politics in the formation of the first Rotary club in Mexico as described by
Brendan M. Goff, in his 2008 PhD thesis: The Heartland Abroad: The Rotary Club’s Mission of Civic Internationalism (pages 94-95)
“…..theoretically, there was no “foreign” in Rotary’s extension. Rather, it was the identity of the male actor in the marketplace, honorable and professional, virtuous and sympathetic, civic-minded and successful, that defined the ideal global citizen for Rotary.
Yet inclusion did not entail full status. The Extension Committee captured this tension in its formal policy for the organization of the Mexico City Rotary Club in 1921.
Since most of the original 30 members of the Mexico City Rotary Club that first year were U.S. or British in origin, Rotary’s leadership stipulated in a special agreement with the first Mexican club that:
1) In the selection of new and additional members, all things being equal, preference is to be given to the native Mexican, and it is further understood that a number of native Mexicans will be immediately added to the club roster.
2) It is understood that the Spanish language shall not be excluded, but shall be used when practicable and that at such meetings as may be presided over by a native Mexican, that he be encouraged to use the language of the nation, Spanish.
3) It was definitely understood that the Rotary Club of the City of Mexico must not be an American or British Colony Club – that it must not be used for the exploitation of American and British commerce, but that it is to be a Mexican Rotary Club for the benefit of the community and nation of Mexico.
RI’s civic internationalism demanded this kind of local representation for all of its clubs.
The legitimacy of the entire project rested upon it. But could a growing representation of “native Mexicans” in the club guarantee any meaningful “benefit” to the “community and nation of Mexico”?
Though the Mexico City club’s constitution provided for the preferential inclusion of local, native Mexican businessmen and professionals over any non-Mexicans of the same classification, that same club constitution also demanded complete “avoidance of politics” in all club meetings and activities. …(Mexico City Rotary Club Constitution, Article III, Section 5 on “Membership” and Article VII, Section 1 on “Avoidance of Politics)… It was one thing to welcome the business and professional elites of Mexico City into the “world fellowship,” quite another to allow the club to serve as a venue for political debate and enabler of Mexican sovereignty over and against U.S. corporate and national interests.”
As these examples demonstrate, whether the rules forbid it or not, Rotary is by its very nature political because Rotary already exists within a political milieu. At various points in its history, it has made decisions with respect to the existence, or non-existence of clubs and has defined the governing terms of clubs in decisions that can only be seen as political in nature.
If all the articles currently decrying the state of democracy in American are too be believed, Rotarians, in concert with other “associations”, should at the very least be pondering the words of de Tocqueville and Hamilton and considering if it is time to focus “on the national interest” of America, as a “liberal democracy”.
January 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm
John, I wish you would indulge your passion for partisan politics in a non-Rotary venue. Although I know you feel (not think…) you have truth and righteousness on your political side, there are many in Rotary who don’t agree, and I am afraid that you are diluting your voice, which we need, on Rotary matters that are much more important than your emotional attachment to Mr. Trump. (I can’t wait to comment on your most recent post on RI’s leadership restructuring!) That being said, I’ll play!
Out of the gate, quoting Fareed Zakaria is not a promising start to some of us who have followed many of his previous comments. I believe that the great Alexis did not mean Rotary Clubs, unless he also was a time traveler. Fareed’s assumption aside, the point that associations of citizens would be a counter balance to the “hungry masses” may have been valid in simpler times, but I think most would agree, is no longer true when well-funded advocacy groups have such a prominent place in much of Western society. And in our highly partisan battle of ideas, looking at all professionals as impartial should have been too silly to mention.
I have written about the issue of politics and Rotary as it affects my Club and I do believe that it is worth continued discussion. I disagree that the lines of reasoning you present forces some sort of mandate on organizations such as ours. There is a very good reason that Rotary, the movement, forbids organizational involvement in partisan politics: it is fundamentally opposed to the purpose we have. If you had the Rotary Club of your dreams, I would not be a Member. While politics may unite fellow travelers, it is widely subversive to common purpose in mixed company.
The Donald’s now infamous put down of CNN is not something new in our politics, though you just might not have seen it practiced before against your side. Please comment on the years of Barry’s publicly putting down Fox and Limbaugh, to name only two. You agreed, I’m sure, and viewed it as justifiable and praiseworthy. I’m sorry, John, but hypocrisy is a frequent practice of the left, though, as in this case, never self-admitted. The blatant partisanship of mainstream media, while widely perceived by many thoughtful observers for years now, was proved by all the recent leaks. It is about time that someone in politics on my side stand up at the big podium and face the reality of it and say enough!
I fail to see any significance to your Mexican voyage, aside from a tenuous link to your friend Mr. Trump. But, as a Canadian, you may not see the issue of illegal immigration the same way as many Americans do. You are not paying for it, nor are you being impacted by it in all the ways that me and my fellow citizens are. Like all progressives, abstraction trumps (sorry…) reality for you. You fail to understand that, at its core, this election was a rising of citizens who have had enough of this faulty world view and who want a return to sanity.
“Rotary is by its very nature political because Rotary already exists within a political milieu.” John, I’m embarrassed for you! What about the Girl Scouts? Or the community players group? Or McDonalds? They also exist within “a political milieu.” (“I’ll have some revolution with my Thin Mints, please.) Please stop stretching so hard to bring politics into Rotary. As with most of your other political ideas, it is a bad one.
One last thing. Your passion for American politics, and the advice it engenders, has inspired me to work on a new post: Is Trudeau doing for the Liberal Party what Obama did for the Democrats?
LikeLike
January 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Ken I love your passion and thank you for the time it took you to write your response .
LikeLike