Threats to Democracy

In this day and age, where heightened political partisanship and social and economic divisions have become common subjects of discussion in newspaper opinion pages, it has become common to refer to these divisions as threats to Democracy. First, and most obviously, this is an attempt by the author to demonize opposing political/social/economic views. But secondly, and most perniciously, it seems like the person stating these things really believes this to be the case, that there really is a threat to democracy. More specifically, the left has been targeting the US Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee and the right has been hitting on the growth of the welfare state and socialism as a threat to Democracy. Neither of these positions has any merit.

Firstly, Democracy is, as we all remember from elementary school social studies, a system of government where the citizens of a state get a say in how that state is run by voting for representatives in the governing body, if not always in directly voting for or against particular pieces of legislation. Historically, democracies have not been the most stable form of government. Neither the democratic states of ancient Greece or Rome survived in perpetuity. The Greek states fell apart and gave way to the Roman empire; and the Roman senate was dominated by virtual dictators called Caesars. In more modern times, democracies have been subject to military coups who instill the military as virtual dictators or single party rule where the citizenry gets little actual say in how their countries are run (think Russia under Putin and China's Communist Party). These are real ways Democracies fail and give way to dictatorships or oligarchies. These are examples of how Democracies fail.

Secondly, attempting to influence the Democratic process by presenting a view point to the public, whether that be the view of a corporation, a labor union or a politician, is not an attempt to usurp Democracy. Rather, it is participation in a dialogue designed to influence voters. Influencing voters is a time honored tradition as old as the worlds first Democracy in ancient Greece. It is up to the person listening to the argument, add, newspaper article or what have you, to think about the message contained there in and form an opinion about it. After thinking about the argument, the person can choose to be swayed or not by its arguments and vote accordingly. But it is still the person's choice and that person is still voting and participating in the Democratic process. Democracy remains healthy.

Now lets look at Citizens United. It is a decision by the US Supreme Court that says that the First Amendment right of freedom of speech extends not only to individuals, but to corporations as well. This allows corporations to buy advertising space on political issues, make political donations and generally participate in the campaign process where before campaign finance laws restricted them. It is assaulted by the left because they believe it gives corporate interests a larger role in politics which they see as corrupting the democratic process. Why it is they believe that business money is corrupting, but union contributions and individual contributions are not (aside from the fact that Corporations typically support Republican candidates while unions and individual donations tend to favor Democrats) has never been clear to me (not to say that I have not read anything on the subject, I have, but I have yet to be convinced by any of these arguments). The end result of the decision is that more money flows into political adds. The problem with claiming this is dangerous to Democracy is that it assumes people are easily lead automatons incapable of coming up with their own opinions or thinking about their own choices. It incorrectly assumes that influencing elections is the same as stealing people's right to choose how they vote. As long as people have the right to form their own opinions and vote how they choose, Democracy will remain healthy.

Similarly, lets look at the Republicans' arguments that socialist welfare states are ruinous to Democracy. The argument is that as more of the populace becomes dependent on big government, they are less likely to be able to vote against big government, even if that is in the best interests of the nation. They point to Europe as an example of how the welfare state can capture an entire society and bankrupt a nation. The problem here is very similar to that in the Democrats' argument against Citizens United, namely it conflates influence with removing people's ability to choose how they vote. It may well be true that people receiving government benefits are unlikely to vote against the people who promise these benefits to them, and that when these benefits get too large and too pervasive they can bankrupt a nation, but that does not mean that the populace lacks a real choice in how they vote. It just means that peoples' self interest can overpower their ability to rationally evaluate the long term impact of the programs they benefit from. But this doesn't mean that Democracy is unhealthy, just that politicians do a better job selling welfare than they do free enterprise. While people still have a meaningful say in the running of a nation, and the freedom to choose who they vote for, then Democracy is alive and well. Greece is still a Democracy, even now when it is bankrupt living hand to mouth from German and IMF loans.

So the rumors of Democracy's demise are greatly exaggerated. They are exaggerated by people who are trying to influence your reasoning in up coming elections and are part of a greater political debate in the world between big government and free enterprise. But these arguments should not be feared, they should be embraced. Because it is in argument, rhetoric, logic and communication that we work through our disparate view points and form consensus on how to run our various nations. This is part of a HEALTHY political debate. Saying that any particular means of argument or viewpoint is dangerous to Democracy as a whole is ludicrous. Such arguments only exist in a nation with freedom of speech and a healthy political dialogue.