The Democratic Imperative:nExporting the AmericannRevolutionnby Gregory A. FossedalnNew York: Basic Books;n293 pp., $19.95nWniinhen a term has become sonuniversally sanctified as ‘democracy’nnow is,” wrote T.S. Eliot inn1939, “I begin to wonder whether itnmeans anything, in meaning too manynthings: it has arrived perhaps at thenposition of a Merovingian Emperor,nand wherever it is invoked, one beginsnto look for the Major of the Palace. . . .nIf anybody ever attacked democracy, Inmight discover what the word meant.”nIf Eliot could read Gregory A. Fossedal’snThe Democratic Imperative, henwould remain as mystified today as henSamuel Francis is deputy editorialnpage editor of The WashingtonnTimes.nAs We Go Marchingnby Samuel Francisn”. . . Your tragic qualitynRequired the huge delusion of some major purpose tonproduce it.nWhat, that the God of the stars needed your help?”n— Robinson JefFers, “Woodrow Wilson”nwas 50 years ago. Mr. Fossedal certainlyndoes not attack democracy, and hisnresponse to the classical criticism of it isncursory. He dismisses this criticism inntwo pages, quoting no less an authoritynthan H.G. Wells to show that “Aristotlenwould have enjoyed the electoralnmethods of our modern democraciesnkeenly.” But if Mr. Fossedal does notnreveal the meaning of democracy bynattacking it, neither does he clarify it bynany precise definition. Not until thenend of the second chapter does it occurnto him that some clarification of whatnhe has been and will be talking aboutnthroughout his book might be callednfor. Although he is content to relegatenhis definition to a long footnote, thenpassage merits quotation at length andnconsideration in depth.nIn this book, the termn[“democracy”] refers to anpolitical system run by leadersnchosen in periodic electionsnopen to general participationnnnand free debate. These leadersnserve a government of limitednpowers, with certain rights suchnas free speech, a fair trial tonthose accused of serious crimes,nand so on, the denial of whichnis beyond the state’s reach. It isnassumed that with those rightsnintact, voters will be able tonchoose the optimal arrangementsnfor, say, economicnfreedom.nThis crucial footnote continues fornmost of the page with further distinctionsnand elaborations, but neither therennor elsewhere does Mr. Fossedal tell usnwhat certain key elements of his. definitionnmean. How “general” does participationnhave to be before a nondemocraticnsystem becomes democratic?nWhat are “free debate,” “free speech,”nand a “fair trial”? What is “and so on”?nThe content and meaning of suchnterms are so variously interpreted in thenUnited States and other countries thatnSEPTEMBER 1989/29n