Democracy is Neither Best Nor Per Se Best for Basic Freedom Or Equality

Tolkien's (VERY) Controversial Take on Democracy
Sword and Scroll | 14 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjs8rKzN1s

I

E F

@eafky3935

I think the biggest problem with democracy is that it basically allows two idiots to out vote a genius and trust me....
Whether we like it or not accept it or not a huge portion of people around the world are simply not smart...
And even a bigger portion are outright stupid....
Just like socialism or communism is a good dream....
A bad idea....
And terrible outcome....
This are only good if it wasn't for us humans because let's accept it... HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL
Never was and never will be equal
No matters how hard you try to force everyone to live just like cattle we love to do our things and be different its in our nature....
Some are smarter
More competent
More diligent

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

I think you have, from Tolkien's perspective, from Chesterton's or from mine, given the worst possible criticism of Democracy.

That it assumes voters are, before the law, equal.

A voter doesn't have to be smart. He just has not to be currently hoodwinked into some miserable gamble.

And your gamble on finding the superior man is one of the most miserable there is.

E F

@hglundahl with all respect brother 🙏
It's just my opinion ....
But I have witness what's happened when you give fools right to choose and power to control....
Im Iranian and i lost almost my entire youth to this so called democratic Islamic republic of iran
Democracy is almost always fundamentally weak if not lead by great and honourable people...😢
It's not from Tolkien perspective but mine....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@eafky3935 OK ... but are we talking of fools or non-Christians there?

II

Ian

@monkeymox2544

Except Aragorn does actively seek and desire kingship. It isn't a mantle that he takes on reluctantly, he pursues (or at least prepares for) it for his whole life, he believes it is his right, and he guards that right. He does so with humility and pragmatism, but he still does it. Of course a part of that is his desire to be with Arwen, but that isn't the whole story. In this video you seem to be talking about the film version of Aragorn, not the book version.

Tolkien clearly thought that part of the problem with the world is when the wrong people are in charge instead of the right people. And the right people are often defined in terms of... well... right. Some people are lesser, others higher, and being higher, they are fitter to rule.

Just look at his so-called 'free peoples' - they aren't actually free. Their freedom consists entirely in their freedom to be ruled by their own, rather than foreign lords. But those people are still ruled, subject to the whims and fancies of absolute rulers. They aren't free by any sensible definition. And Tolkien never questions whether they really do have a right to rule, he seems happy that these kinds of power relations should exist. Tolkien often talks about Sauron having 'slaves', whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants', but in terms of the actual power relation, it is a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants',"

Are they?

I don't think so.

I think some of them are described as that, because that was their precise function. I don't think he ever described an old woman of Minas Tirith or a fisherman in Dol Amroth (not sure of the landscapes) as his own servant, but some were his servants, like Beef Eaters are servants of Charles III.

The difference is, is a man in his own house in no public function in Cornwall the servant of Charles III or any of his administrations, or isn't he?

The freedom isn't in having a say in who rules you. The freedom is in your being ruled in a way that doesn't ruin your freedoms.

Ian

@hglundahl I can't find the quote about servants, just flicking through, I'll have to have a closer search when I have a moment. I remember noticing it on my last read.

Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you. If you're ruled absoloutely, then you are not free, even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire.

'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free. The less absoloute and arbitrary and fixed a form of government is, the more free it is, provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@monkeymox2544 "Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you."

That's a claim by politologists which I think Tolkien would disagree with and so would I.

"even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire."

What's superficial about having freedom in your own life?

"provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected."

A proviso that Democracies have not been good at providing ....

"'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free."

A state need not be a free person for its citizens to be such ...

But seriously, that word is obfuscating realities. If you are not a hermit living totally offgrid or a ruler, you are ruled. It means you can be required to do or let be things by people like the police.