“Isn’t the conflict in Iran essentially between supporters of a theocracy and those who aspire to having a democracy?” That is the question that was put to me earlier today by a reporter from National Public Radio. But it seems to simplistic a way to understand the turmoil in Iran for any number of reasons, not least of which is the constant oversimplification in our understanding of the two. At the end of the day, is one always better than the other? Why?
It’s easy to point out the myriad ways in which theocracies fail and even easier to offer platitudes about the inherent goodness of democracy, especially as current events unfold in Iran. But like it or not, all such observations miss the obvious truth. There have been many theocratic governments that accomplished much good for the governed and advanced the quality of life for all under their control, regardless of faith. And more than a few despots and mass murderers have risen to power on the strength of a popular election.
The question is not which system is best; it’s which values we hold most dear. Of course that’s a difficult question for which to assume responsibility, and the track record of those who failed to appreciate that fact has not been so good. That is why one of the values worthy of building in to any political system is the humility to acknowledge that very fact. But one could imagine theocracies whose understanding of God did just that, and just as easily, we can recall populist movements arrogantly practicing what Tocqueville called tyranny of the majority.
Political systems, whether theocratic or democratic, are simply vehicles for the realization of the values we cherish. The real issue is what values do we think are most worthy of animating our political systems?

For some the answer to that question is found in a holy book. For others it is found in the collective experience of humankind. But it is always a choice that each of us makes and the political systems for which we advocate reflect those choices.
Would any of us be comfortable with a democratically elected government which set about murdering a particular minority within their nation? Of course not. Why? Because the value of human life and the obligation to protect those with less power and influence by virtue of their minority status, are values that many of us hold dear.
Would we truly object to a government taking its cues from a particular religion which taught that all people should be governed equally and that the rights of all people had to be protected fully without respect to their religion? I hope not. But not because theocracy is good, but because we are committed to the fullest possible inclusion of the governed and offering equal rule under the law for all citizens.
To be sure, democracy is based upon the value of people participating in the decision-making processes of government, and that is one more value worthy of celebration. But not because democracy is inherently good, or even necessarily better than theocracy. It’s because over time, systems which have included the voice of the governed as fully as possible, and create regular opportunities to revisit past decisions through the ballot box, have preserved human dignity more effectively than any other system.
The truth is that for me, and millions of other people, that is also a faith-based principle. Does that make me a theocrat? I don’t think so, but it really doesn’t matter. Why? Because people, not systems, are ultimately what are important. Remaining cognizant of that, is what separates healthy faith, be it religious or political, from idolatry.
Those systems which respect and value people best are themselves best. Of course, proponents of both systems argue that is what they each do. In truth, there are ways in which theocracies do that better and there are many more in which democracies do so. But if either sits back and assumes that theirs is automatically the way to go, then we are all in trouble – a true clash of civilizations. If however, each approach to government made a point of learning from the other, the weaknesses of each could be more effectively addressed and the strengths of each more effectively built upon.
It’s about serving people, not propping up a particular system for its own sake. That’s the most important thing to remember when it comes to any system of government.