Democracy and liberty are not synonyms

Rod Liddle points out that there are a number of authoritarians in our society:

They yearn for authoritarianism and, however they might profess their love of humanity, they distrust and despise people who are not themselves. They are, I think, anti-democrats. They live in a world that is not to their liking largely because it is too free. Lockdown is, for them, a kind of nirvana and it should continue for ever.

A certain exaggeration there for effect possibly but there certainly are those out there who are natural authoritarians. But this is not to be anti-democratic, it’s to be anti-liberty, anti-civil rights perhaps.

An important distinction that must be made.

Democracy is valuable, no doubt about it. But it’s not the ultimate value, not at all. It can - indeed often has and will always be at risk of becoming - a tyranny of the majority. Which is why we have systems of limiting said democracy.

We have Human Rights Acts, Bills of Rights, the ECHR and on and on precisely to limit what democracy may do to us. Yes they’re, in that first line, what government may not do to us but that’s just democracy - in a democratic system of course - at one remove.

Authoritarians are not anti-democratic, they’re anti-civil libertarian. It’s the risks of authoritarians managing to get elected which means we have those systems to protect us from democracy just as we also have systems to promote it.

As with so much else there’s an optimal amount of that democracy. Enough that we determine who rules us, assuredly, but not so much that the majority overrides that liberty.