James Paul Lusk
Writing on democracy, politics and Christianity
Democracy's roots and meaning ... a very short introduction
Zurich, Switzerland - the story in four sites
Charlemagne, founder of the Holy Roman Empire
Ulrich Zwingli
Around 800 AD, Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire. His statue is in Zurich's Grossmunster. Seven hundred years after Charlemagne, this was the headquarters of the Swiss Reformation, led by Pastor Ulrich Zwingli. The Protestant Reformers followed the Catholics in applying the theory of "two swords": church and state worked together to enforce God's rule, All citizens had to belong to one church. But a group called "Anabaptists" rejected this. They insisted that the New Testament tells believers to form self-governing churches. A memorial (below) to Felix Manz and others marks where their death sentence was carried out, by drowning.
Memorial to murdered Anabaptists, Zurich
Engraving by Jan Luiken showing the 1637 arrest of Anabaptists in Zurich
The English civil war opened the way to freedom of religion
The Anabaptists spread their message across Europe. They held from the Bible that
- The church consists only of believers who follow Jesus as Lord.
- A person may be baptised only when ready to decide that she or he wishes to make this public commitment.
- The state has no authority in matters of religion, and
- the local gathering of true believers is the only body with authority to manage its own business including admitting members and appointing teachers and leaders
Anabaptists challenged the prevailing idea that, to keep order, the state must decide on the religion to be followed by all. Persecuted, exiled and killed in large number, Anabaptists laid the foundations both for the modern independent church and modern democracy.
My article, published in Anabaptism Today in 2019, looks at how this played out in England.
Roger Williams, returning to Providence from London in 1644, holds up the Rhode Island Patent of 1643-44. By E. Boyd Smith (1860-1943) (New York Public Library)
The first modern democracy was based on unlimited freedom of religion
The form of government established … is Democratical, that is to say, a government held by the free and voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of the free inhabitants’
- code of laws adopted by Providence Plantations, 1647
The American colony later known as Rhode Island was formed to protect full freedom of religion. It was a haven for those persecuted by the government of Massachusetts, including Anabaptists and Quakers. Its founder, Roger Williams, got clearance from England’s Parliament to form the new colony, with its own government, in 1644.
Before leaving England to return to Providence with this ‘patent’, Roger Williams released The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience.
Roger Williams' key arguments became the foundation for the Rhode Island democracy. They were also a vital influence on developments in the English civil war:
- the state’s legitimacy comes from the consent of the citizens.
- God wills complete freedom for all – including ‘Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences and worships’.
Jean Bodin (1530-96) was the most influential political theorist of the day, He thought "democracy" meant the rule of the majority over the minority.
Democracy is a system "held by consent."
Roger Williams did not use the word "democracy" for his political proposal. Up to that time, "democracy" meant the rule of the majority over the minority. Providence Plantations developed its form of government from 1644 to 1647. The settlers took Williams' idea of government "held by consent" and gave it the name "democracy." This was a new political invention - the rudimentary basis of liberal democracy. Democracy meant respect for each other's "conscience." It meant, as far as possible, personal self-government. It is a principle of state legitimacy.
Consent does not mean (as Hobbes thought) something given once, in the past, and never renewed. Nor does it mean consensus.
Consent means consent to the form of the state, not to all decisions.
Consent, in Williams' thought, must be renewed.
Students of politics today learn that there are hundreds of different meanings of "democracy." This is a source of confusion.
A common definition says that it means "collective decision making." I argue that this is a myth: there is, generally speaking, no such thing as a "collective" decision. This myth leads to bad decisions, poor government and "majoritarian" struggle.