What’s wrong with democracy?

The rise of authoritarian leaders and disruptive populists has caused political scientists to warn us about the end of democracy. And a global survey showed that ‘dissatisfaction with democracy’ rose sharply in the USA, UK, Australia, Spain and elsewhere since the 1990s.

Now, ‘democracy’ should mean that most, if not all, people participate in and influence the policy decisions that affect them, which would be satisfying if done well. So, what if our present crisis and dissatisfaction aren’t about democracy? Is the real problem that our representative governments aren’t very democratic? Should we stop calling them ‘democracies’?

What we have in practice is representative government supported by a large and anonymous civil service. Multi-party elections and civil service appointments ensure that the average citizen stays out of – or is spared the trouble of – policymaking and administration. We elect a few people to make decisions on our behalf; the hard work is done by hired bureaucrats from whom we rarely hear. We now call this ‘democracy’ (rule by the people) due to the universal franchise and the institutionalisation of values such as press freedom and judicial independence. And this arrangement was, after all, much less undemocratic than European fascism and Soviet communism.

It doesn’t resemble the demokratia of ancient Athens, however. Their lawmaking citizens’ assemblies, attended by thousands of free men, and their allocation of administrative offices by lot (or sortition rather than election) were quite unlike our representative government.

Considering the history of the arts of government, competitive representation is a comparatively good model. In modern industrial societies almost everyone can read and has to pay taxes, so all adults should have a vote – not just the property-owning men, as in the past.

That’s an improvement on absolute monarchy, theocracy and totalitarianism. But even Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy has an elected assembly of representatives (the Duma) to rubber-stamp laws. Mussolini and his fascist party rose to dictatorship in the 1920s after they’d been elected as representatives in the Italian parliament.

Even in countries that are highly rated for free and fair elections, most people know little about the parties and policies for which they vote – if they vote at all. Rising educational attainment and ready availability of information haven’t significantly reduced our ‘political ignorance’. Ignorance makes ‘the people’ easy to ignore or manipulate. For example, the opinions of a majority of Americans are less likely to be reflected in policy outcomes than those of economic elites or organised interest groups, according to one frequently cited study. The majority may rule – provided they agree with the rich and influential.

And disproportional electoral methods can give minorities a majority representation. In the UK’s election in 2019, only 67.3 percent of those registered actually voted. Conservative candidates received 43.6 percent of total votes, or only 29.3 percent of all people registered. But the Conservative Party won 365 (or 56.1 percent) of the 650 seats.

When we add in the misconduct of some political leaders, it’s no wonder that people are dissatisfied. But don’t blame democracy. If there’s a genuine crisis, it’s a crisis of representative government, not democracy.

Representative assemblies arose in the middle ages. Monarchs summoned noblemen, bishops and wealthy commoners to gain consent to raise taxes and levy troops in order to wage war. At its inception, representation was aristocratic and not democratic. Two historical developments transformed representative government: monarchs were either overthrown or confined to constitutionally very limited roles; the idea that parliaments act on behalf of all the people (not just a few) was strengthened as the franchise was extended, first to all men, then all adults. But representative systems produce a wide political division of labour. They’re now less undemocratic, but not fully democratic. For large populations, however, this may be a workable compromise.

Countries that enjoy higher levels of prosperity, civil liberties and respect for human rights are more likely to conduct free and fair elections. But they may also experience considerable political distrust. And in many other countries, elections are fraudulent, opposition parties are suppressed, and government is corrupt.

So representative government with a universal franchise has been a great improvement on the past – but not a panacea for the ailments of government.

Does representation need to be redesigned? To effectively address urgent global problems, it would greatly help if we could restore trust in government, which could require institutional changes. Getting a majority of the people to agree on reforms is a difficult political task, however, no matter how enlightened the intentions. But beneficial structural changes to our systems of government are not impossible either.

Now, I won’t offer solutions before you’ve had a chance to think about the problem. So let me conclude with a question: what is the purpose of good government?