No leader has a right to abandon the social contract
Democracy is more than choosing your government; sometimes candidates you don’t prefer will prevail. Democracy is a social contract in which we agree that we will honor all of the rights of our fellow citizens, whichever side wins the election. It is this mutual commitment to ongoing solidarity, even in the midst of heated policy disagreements, that makes human freedom possible.
Democracy is also a measure of legitimacy—not because democratically minded people prefer it that way, but because no leader has a right to abandon the social contract. Any leader unable to honor the core principles of democratic process—which require the welcoming of difference and governing as a servant, not a ruler entitled to power—forfeits any legitimacy they might have had.
This might seem subjective, but there are clear logical boundaries that distinguish democracy from anti-democracy. No office-holder can use the powers of public office to enrich themselves or give advantage to their own power over the right of others to be chosen to better carry out the duties of that office. Anyone who does this forfeits legitimacy.
This democratic reasoning works in all directions, giving life to our social contract, so the humanity of every person is valued above the desire of anyone to wield power over others. For any of this to be possible, the most powerful, those who for a given time have at their command, the most significant levers of power, must be held to the rule of law.
The use of state power to punish the powerless and persecuted, or to abuse those who reveal wrongdoing by power-holders, is pure corruption. Such abuses negate any claim to legitimate use of public office, whether they take place in a society that honors the rule of law or in a society where authoritarian abuses are commonplace.
Solidarity is the embodiment of democracy and the social contract. The refusal to acknowledge this is not an act in defense of liberty; it is a secessionist suggestion that violent coercion is preferable to reciprocal recognition of shared humanity and transcendent rights.
Those who honor humanity, vulnerability, and solidarity, are defenders of our personal freedoms—even if they never say the word. Those who honor coercive violence and the unaccountable use of power, are actively working to undermine our personal freedoms, even if they shout that freedom is their cause.
These subtleties aren’t really so subtle. We know where the boundaries are. Vladimir Putin didn’t lie to his soldiers about their mission, because he wanted to “free” Ukraine; he lied to them, and secretly sent mobile crematoria to conceal their deaths from the Russian people, because his cause is dishonorable on every level.
No leader has a right to abuse innocent human beings or to advance their own power at the expense of vulnerable people. The cause of human rights and honorable governance requires that we recognize each other’s humanity as paramount.
Holding all leaders everywhere to the principle that they are subservient to the law and to the safety and humanity of those who do not hold power is essential, for the security and wellbeing of all nations. The international community must become even more united than it is now in making sure Vladimir Putin cannot continue his atrocities in Ukraine; his unconditional surrender and criminal indictment must be the outcome.