The Limits of Democracy

“Democracy! Democracy!” Everybody loves Democracy. But what is it? Is it a New England Town Meeting? A Russian Soviet? Or Pericles’ Athens? 

‘Democracy’ (Greek) – Rule of the People. But what does that mean? Proposed: a regime or state is ‘democratic’ to the extent that its policies are sensitive to, and reflective of, the interests and opinions of its citizens. 

If you find this definition intuitively appealing, you might want to give it another thought! Otherwise, you might find yourself stumbling over some very disturbing implications.

For example, an elaborate electoral and legislative superstructure does not necessarily translate as ‘democracy’. Think Venezuela. On the other hand, my grandfather’s fondest wish, a ‘Benevolent Dictator’, would qualify. The ‘will of the people’ could theoretically be discerned through any of the following: 

1. a process of consensus formation (e.g. Soviets) 

2. the leadership of a Vanguard (e.g. PRC)

3. direct participation in the legislative process (e.g. referenda) 

4. elected representatives (e.g. Parliament)

5. the intuition of a well-meaning ruler (Old Testament Judges) 

6. the benevolence of oligarchs, clergy, and or nobility 

7. the consolation of philosophers (Plato, Augustine/Aquinas Hobbs/Locke/Rousseau, Bentham/Mill, Marx/Lenin, Rawls) 

8. the application of algorithms designed to produce ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (aka Economism/technocracy) 

9. the revelation of a divine authority (e.g. Torah). 

10. The casting of yarrow stalks (I Ching).

Nor can we rely uncritically on the self-reported identity of nation states. For example, 7 countries currently include the word ‘Democratic’ in their name:

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos) 

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 

Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal 

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide whether these nations, true to their name, are especially good examples of Democracy in action. 

Almost all nation states today pay at least lip service to the idea of Democracy. It remains to be seen whether any state’s commitment to Democracy is absolute. Consider contemporary Europe and the recent rise in right wing sentiment:

In Germany, for example, the AfD already has 77 members in the federal Bundestag and their share seems likely to grow. But this poses a problem for a Germany that considers anti-fascism to be an existential imperative. Accordingly 37 centrist parliamentarians are moving to have the AfD outlawed as a political party. Democratic?

Carmen Wegge, a lawmaker with the center-left SPD argues, "In Germany, democracy has already once been abolished by democratic means, and our continent was plunged into ruin." Perhaps unwittingly, Wegge defines the dilemma. What happens when Democracy itself becomes anti-democratic? When the will of the people is that ‘the will of the people’ not be allowed to interfere with the determination of policy or the conduct of affairs of state?

Most nations are willing, if not anxious, to let the camel’s nose of public opinion into the decision making tent. Some because it is ‘the right thing to do’, some because it will produce the ‘best’ aggregate result over time, some because they realize that engagement is an effective means of control.

But the extent of that incursion varies from regime to regime. Few nations, for example, allow citizens to work toward the overthrow of the government by extra-constitutional means, even if such efforts would be popular.

The closest thing we have to an exception comes from late 80’s Eastern Europe. The nations of the Warsaw Pact, one by one, allowed their recognized governments to be overthrown by various popular movements. Nary a shot was fired. These regimes either did not have, or elected not to deploy, a ‘kill switch’. It was an amazing example of the peaceful, extra-constitutional transfer of political power. It has not been repeated since.

At about this same time, pro-democracy demonstrations were occurring in the PRC. At first it seemed that leaders there might be willing to compromise with the demonstrators; but then things took a turn, resulting in ‘Tiananmen Square’. China slammed the door on Western style democracy and the rest, as they say, is history.

Bottom line, there is a consensus abroad in the world that some amount of popular political input is a good thing, but different nations have vastly different strategies for tapping, channeling, and ultimately, controlling that input. Few nations, for example, are willing to allow that input to pose an existential threat to the regime itself: “However, it is important that passengers on this cruise ship know that they are free to rearrange the deck chairs anyway they choose.” 

So what really defines a political system is not the style or extent of its democracy but the limitations it imposes, de jure or de facto,  on democratic input. Presumably, every political system draws a line somewhere. If not, the Anarchist ideal would have been realized long since. 

In analyzing any regime, the key is to identify the limitations it imposes on democracy, the tactics it uses to enforce those limitations, and the point at which such limitations are triggered. As we self-adoringly navel gaze, It is important we remember that ‘democracy’ is ‘authority’ by another name, employing other means, in response to different circumstances.  

Keep the conversation going.

1. Click here to comment on this TWS.

2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link.

3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers; click here to view out Writers’ Specs.