c. The solution of this antinomy is of course that democracy
is not an end in itself, but only a means for the selection and sanction
of aristocracy.[9] The best elements in the population can only come to
the top if every man has an opportunity of using his voice and his
intelligence. We may note in passing that a common objection, raised by
writers like Emile Faguet, to the effect that democracy puts a premium
on incompetence by choosing its officials almost fortuitously from the
mob, is the exact opposite of the truth. It is our present regime that
leaves the selection of our rulers to the chances of birth or wealth or
forensic success. Real democracy will stimulate the selection of the
best, just as trade union standardisation of wages encourages the
employment of the better workmen.[10]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 8: Such a volume or something very much like it has actually
made its appearance, since these lines were written, in Professor Robert
Michels' _Political Parties_ (Jarrold, 1916).]

[Footnote 9: Cf. Bernard Shaw, in Pease, _History of the Fabian
Society_, p. 268: "Sooner or later, unless democracy is to be discarded
in a reaction of disgust such as killed it in ancient Athens, democracy
itself will demand that only such men should be presented to its choice
as have proved themselves qualified for more serious and disinterested
work than 'stoking up' election meetings to momentary and foolish
excitement. Without qualified rulers a Socialist State is impossible."]

Sec. 11

Diplomacy not bad in itself

The real importance of diplomacy, as I have said, is in the fact that it
is a mitigation of primary ferocity, a symptom of readiness to
negotiate, a recognition of the fact that disputes need not be settled
by immediate violence: and as such it points to a time when war may be
superseded, as personal combat has been superseded by litigation. The
man who puts a quarrel with his neighbour into the hands of a legal
representative is a stage higher in social civilisation than the man who
fights it out at sight. Diplomats are the legal representatives of
nations--only there is no supernational court before which they can
state their case.

Of course, it is perfectly true that the ultimate sanction of diplomacy
is always force, that international negotiations may always be resolved
into a series of polite threats, and that the envoy of the small and
weak nation rarely has any influence. Indeed there are few le