In the month of February, 1986, I witnessed a historic moment in history. Peaceful demonstrations toppled the government of the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Reformist Filipino soldiers were actually protected and backed by peaceful demonstrators that moved the hand of the dictator. Soldiers were moving about the city being cheered on by people on the streets. 

     Today the idea that the voice of the people reigns supreme is in crisis. I think about February 1990 when Austrians elected a government on the far right (anti immigration and nationalistic) and foreign goverments nullified the election for fear of the specter of Nazi rule that caused destruction in the 1930's and 1940's. I think about the so-called Arab Stpring, initially backed by the United States because it is supposedly a popular uprising against dictatorial rule, but actually ushered in the possiblity of oppressive Islamists gaining power and using that power to bring undesirable oppression of minority voices. I think about Proposition 8 in California, where the majority of California voters proclaimed that marriage is between one man one woman. This was overturned by a judge as unconstitutional. I used disagree with the decision but now I get the point. The results of the referendum is seen as denial of human rights, specifically the right to marry (pursuit of happiness?) for a segment of the population. The judge saw this as tantamount to a local city council denying blacks the right to hold public office, for example. Despite our position on the subject, we should understand the judge's dilemma. Can a majority really defeat civil rights? If we protect civil rights against majority rule, then we admit that the rule of the people is not our overarching guide to what is beneficial for a people. In other words, our faith in the power of the people must go.

     Finally recently, the Russians annexed Crimea, basically taking it from Ukraine, supposedly as a response to the peoople's desire to be part of Russia. The western world condemned this action, despite its supposed respect for the voice of the people. Now we have the spectre of powerful nations, using supposed Majority rule, to justify its actions. 

     My purpose in writing this is to point out that we cannot stand behind the rule of the people to guide us in what is right for our nation or other nations for that matter. We could not know completely the will of the people. Besides, loud and influential voices could sway public opinion for the sake of its agenda (not for the sake of the common good). What if public opinion eventually get swayed to urge the state to abolish laws against pedophilia? Does that mean that pedophilia has stopped being wrong? If we really believe public opinion is king, then this possibility should not make us cringe. Cringing only reveals hypocrisy. The truth is, we either bow dow to public opinion or we stand by an eternal law (what a society views as rooted in nature and therefore unalterable). For the secular west, the latter is an impossibility because it could not enshrine its principles as the absolute good for humans. It could only stand for relative good (what the "influentials" view as good and/or tolerable). Here lies the rub. When those voices impose the relative good,  then it has shown that it is willing to step on the consciences of the common people.