Freemasonry and the Idea of Democracy

When in the course of human events the mass of people living in a nation learn how to live together as a people, and devise means whereby to secure for themselves their rights as a people, and contrive political machinery and social institutions of such character as exist by and for the whole mass of individuals, that land may be said to be a democracy; for democracy may be described as a state of society in which the people as a whole control in their own collective interest the institutions and forces of the nation. No nation becomes democratic by first thinking out a theory of what democracy is and then, as an architect follows a blueprint, deliberately setting out to put the theory into practice; but they arrive at democracy very gradually and naturally, though not always without strife, by securing control of one thing and of another until they have control of everything, and then manage everything so as to satisfy the needs and desires of the people as a whole.

Some nations long for democracy, others are on the way to democracy, and others still may be said to possess it, albeit in no nation has it as yet become perfect. The most conspicuous among these last is, perhaps, our own country. It was the first great nation to adopt democracy whole-heartedly, and it has from the first never swerved from the path that leads to a more and more complete control of everything by the people themselves and in their own interests. Whether one should describe as democratic a nation that merely longs for it, or whether the name should be exclusively applied only to those nations which may be truly said already to possess it, must be left to the individual’s opinion to decide. The use of words is one thing, facts are another. The organisation of public life by and for the public—that is what we Americans believe in with all our hearts, unless we are renegades, and that is what we American Masons, with an equal whole-heartedness, believe the Masonic Fraternity to stand for.

Now it is self-evident that there may be many means whereby the public as a public may come into control of its own social forces and institutions. How democracy is to be won, and preserved is a question of political and social machinery, and that is a matter that cannot concern us here because it belongs to politics. Suffice it to say that it is possible for the people directly to manage their own institutions, as in some cities the price of a street car ride is determined by popular ballot, which is usually described as “direct democracy,” and that it is also possible for the people to control their own institutions through elected representatives, as is usually done among us, which method is called the “republican” or “representative” system. In our own nation we mix up the two methods very much, and the United States might be properly described as a democracy in the form of a republic.

The reader may have been wondering why it should be necessary to include among these chapters a paper on democracy when the book includes two other papers on equality and liberty respectively. Well, it may be said in reply that while democracy includes equality and liberty, equality and liberty may exist without democracy, and that in our nation, and also I believe in our Fraternity, we strive for all three together. Liberty means that a man is free to develop and use the functions of his own nature without undue interference from others. Equality means that one man has the same fundamental nature as another man, and should have the same privileges to live; but it has often happened that a social structure has existed in which only a minority of the people have been permitted to enjoy either liberty or equality. In Athens, for example, a fraction of the populace was composed of citizens enjoying liberty while the great bulk of them were slaves, and in many parts of India, to cite an example of the other kind, all the individuals enjoy liberty but, owing to a very hard-and-fast caste system, they do not have equality. The democrat (this must not be confused with a member of the political party which employs that name) believes that liberty is a good thing for each individual and that therefore a state should guarantee it to all, and he also thinks that the state should provide genuine equality for all. A state in which all the social forces and values are controlled by and for all the people, and which is so organised at the same time as to guarantee for all liberty and equality, may be thought of as the ideal toward which all true democrats are working. If it be true, as I think it is true, that Freemasonry is one of the mightiest forces working in that direction, we may all feel that no institution could be of more value to our nation than Freemasonry.

We must be careful not to conceive of democracy as being merely political. I should advance this as a criticism of James Bryce’s definition in his recent treatise, already seen to be a great work, called “Modern Democracies.” He says that “democracy really means nothing more nor less than the rule of the whole people expressing their sovereign will by their votes.” That is clearly a merely political definition. Democracy is often something besides a “rule”: it may be an expression of the popular life} as in what we call democratic art, like the “Leaves of Grass” by Walt Whitman; and when it is a rule it may be exercised in quite other ways than political, as when social changes are brought about or prevented by the power of public opinion; and also it often happens that the mere unconscious growth and changing of a people may transform important conditions in a nation’s life, Then, too, I think one should quarrel with Viscount Bryce’s definition in that it ignores such things as social democracy, industrial democracy, and intellectual democracy. By social democracy we mean that social customs and conditions should be controlled and shaped by all the people in the interests of all the people. By industrial democracy we mean that industry shall be controlled by and in the interests of everybody; and by intellectual democracy we mean that there shall be no mere caste of thinkers as there was in Ancient Egypt but that everybody will use his brains and that science and scholarship exist for all and by all. The organising of science and scholarship in public schools which function under the control of the state is an example of how the intellectual life may become genuinely democratic. How all these things may be accomplished or perfected is a question of ways and means and belongs to those discussions in which we strive to discover what are the most perfect social mechanisms, and therefore do not come within our present province.

It is wise for us to learn to look at the facts themselves, and do our own thinking by means of them, rather than to let ourselves be deceived by words. For oftentimes it happens that a nation may call itself a democracy or a republic and yet have not even a tithe of the reality for which these names stand. Mexico under Diaz may have had a very stable government but it was not a democracy, though Diaz and his grandees were careful to observe the formalities, and carried on “elections” every once in a while. Diaz called himself a “President” but in reality was a dictator. In England, on the other hand, there is a king and a royal house but everybody knows that the English people are quite as democratic as we are, because their great governing body is immediately responsible to the people, and is elected directly by the people.

It may be safely said that Freemasonry is about the most democratic institution in existence. On its lodge floor men of all grades of rank, wealth and influence meet together in absolute equality, so that Presidents of the United States have sat on the side lines while some humble workman governed in the East. Its members are elected by secret ballot; its officers are chosen by ballot also; and it is governed by laws administered through representatives who must, once a year, give an account of their trust to the body of the membership. It is so organised that its responsibilities and privileges are distributed among the whole membership so that all share equally.

The democratic nature of the Craft is shown by its actual conduct in history during the past two hundred years. It arose in England (I refer here to modern Speculative Masonry as we now know it) when society in general hated and loathed the idea of democracy, and when men were broken up into social classes of such rigidity as really to constitute genuine castes; but in its lodges Masonry gave to every man absolute freedom of thought and expression and it put into practice those methods of popular rule which we have now in our government. Since its reorganisation in 1717 it has always thrown its weight, or at least with very few exceptions, if any, on the side of popular rule. I had occasion recently to read every reference to Freemasonry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I was struck by the fact again and again that the Fraternity received mention almost every time as being one of the forces on the side of a revolt against tyranny in some country, as, for example, in Spain and in Belgium. We know how that a great many of the founders of our nation were active members of the Craft; how that the Declaration of Independence has been freely described, even by the profane, as a Masonic document; and how it can be accurately said that the Constitution of the United States is Masonry put into political practice; and we also know that Masons were very active in fomenting and carrying through the American Revolution.

The teachings and principles of Freemasonry can never be realised in any state of society save a democratic one. How could there be equality for all in a nation ruled by a class, or a caste, or a clique of bureaucrats, or a set of multi-millionaires? How could liberty be guaranteed to every last man in a nation that did not govern itself through laws that apply equally to all, and are interpreted and executed by men chosen by the people and responsible to the people? In any other kind of government liberty and equality may be granted for a time as a privilege, but there is never any way of knowing, as history itself so abundantly attests, when that privilege may be withdrawn.

One is reminded of Masonry’s great book, Albert Pike’s “Morals and Dogma.” Those who have carefully read that wonderful work (“those” should include every Mason, whether he be a member of the Scottish Rite Bodies or not) will recall how that liberty and equality sound through its pages over and over like a mighty bell, and how that the author interprets the whole of history as a vast conflict between the forces that make for tyranny and the forces that make for freedom. It is often asked why Scottish Rite Masonry makes such headway in Latin countries where Ancient Craft Masonry (the “Blue Lodge”) stagnates: I believe the reply to be this, that Albert Pike and his co-founders of the Scottish Rite System organised a Masonry that may be readily translated into a people’s yearning for political freedom. They read in its mighty palimpsest their own prayers for liberation; they find in it a power for emancipation; it is an irresistible force for the overthrow of thrones and dominions.

But it must not be supposed that Freemasonry works for democracy only when it is engaged in some actual struggle, as it was during our Revolutionary period. Its silent and perpetual influences, quiet as the coming of the night, unostentatiously prepare in every Mason’s mind those thoughts and feelings which make toward democracy. It has become a commonplace with political thinkers that democracy cannot come to any people until they have prepared themselves for it. Democracy is not a magic that acts independently of the citizenship; it is a thing that people themselves do if it be done, and it cannot be unless they learn how to do it, and until they desire it with a ceaseless desire. Our great Order of more than two and one-half million members in this nation exercises an immeasurable influence toward a full and complete democracy by constantly instilling into its members those ideas and longings which inwardly prepare them for the fullest measures of equality and liberty. As the sun works so potently in the spring in developing the young seeds until a luxuriant vegetation breaks forth, so does the mighty Fraternity that is dedicated to Light throw its fructifying warmth about the mind and heart of every one of its children. And it does this ceaselessly. It knows no seasons: it has no winter.

Democracy, I said, is not a kind of magic that works whether or no. It is not an infallibility. When the people govern themselves they do not escape mistakes nor are they miraculously freed from weaknesses and evils. The theory of democracy is that the people can learn to govern themselves only by governing themselves, just as an individual learns by experience and experiments. Therefore though the people, or let us say “we,” may fail, time and again, that is no reason for despairing of democracy.