When I first started working at The Branding Iron, I noticed something interesting. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Conduct, which all student media staff are required to review and abide by, makes an interesting claim. “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”
I found this odd. For one, I currently do not live in a democracy. I live in the representative republic that is the United States. Secondly, why are we required to advocate for a specific ideology in unbiased journalism? Democracy is simply a system that some countries use, and others do not. It is not something to be held up on a pedestal, but rather an objective term used to describe the system of governance that has become the most widely used in the Western world. So why do Americans, who don’t even live in a true democracy, seem to worship the term?
Well, to start, we have a long history with it. The United States is touted by many academics and historians as the foundation of modern liberal democracy. We’ve carried this torch, so to speak, throughout our history, spreading our ideology far and wide, and making sure as many countries as possible follow it. Democracy is a rallying cry for Americans, something that we’re immensely proud of, and something that we’re afraid to lose. It has become ingrained into the American psyche alongside baseball and apple pie. But I’m going to posit something: It might not be the best system we could be using.
Controversial statement. I know. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with democracy. Like all forms of government, it is simply a way of deciding how to do things. Advocates would argue that democracy provides the most direct input from the people for how to run the show. In an ideal world, democracy is indeed the ideal solution. Well-educated voters from all walks of life would come together in intellectual agreement on how best to run the country, and there may be some detractors for certain issues, which would be solved after considering their opinions. A system that works and addresses everyone’s problems. However, there is one caveat: has anyone seen a democracy function like this?
In our current election, we have two unique candidates: One side has a person who is saying what people want to hear in order to get elected, and on the other side we have a person who is saying what people want to hear in order to get elected. Hmm. Will either of them follow this policy once they get into office? There are no guarantees of that. So, what was the point of this whole process? We’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars and months of our time just to get someone who’s effectively going to do whatever they want for four years.
In addition to this, the average voter, like all human beings, is selfish. People tend to vote for what benefits themselves, rather than what benefits the country as a whole. If a theoretical oil tycoon is given the option between increasing taxes on oil corporations to give the money to public schooling, or some other societal good, he will likely vote to keep his money. Conversely, if a candidate states that they’re going to burn down a national forest, but give people $10,000 each for doing so, the vote may be pretty split. Objective public goods often get voted against because they personally affect someone negatively. Not a particularly efficient or effective way of running a country that’s supposed to be the world’s superpower.
So how can we fix this? A popular saying regarding democracy is that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others,” a quote attributed to Winston Churchill. But I fundamentally reject this claim, and there are modern real-world examples to back this up. The mere existence of incredibly rich city-states such as Singapore and even Hong Kong seems to reject the notion that successful nations must be democracies; all these states are one-party systems. While there exists a formal democratic “structure” in some of these, it exists merely as a pretext to give legitimacy to these nations in a democratically dominated world. In other words: they do this to look good.
The absence of democracy in each of these societies, contrary to what popular opinion may tell you, does not lead to an inherently authoritarian regime that restricts its citizens’ rights. Restrictions that are placed on personal liberties almost exclusively target the development of democracy; an understandable stance given how destructive it often is in other countries. Before the 19th century, people the world over tended to agree that democracy, having been tried before in Athens, was a failure, and an inherently destructive and polarizing system of government. The failure of Athenian democracy has been attributed to several factors, including political scandals, endless and unpopular wars, a surge in immigration that the city-state couldn’t handle, and a perpetual financial crisis. Does any of this sound familiar?
One thing missing from modern democracies, as noted above, is accountability. Once a leader is elected, they’re effectively able to do what they want within the confines of their powers (which, for the executive branch, are far more extensive than most presidents utilize) for their entire term. One solution to this flaw in democracy could be forcing accountability onto an autocratic ruler. Corporations, while having a CEO with theoretical full executive powers, also have a board of directors who can eliminate that CEO if they’re doing something against the benefit of the company. This is only one potential solution to one potential problem with democracy, but there are others.
We could also re-invent our republic to act more in line with what was originally intended for the nation. Looking to the past, we can see that the founding fathers were not in fact in favor of universal suffrage. Their solution was to allow only property-holding males (or free African Americans, in certain states) to vote. While this is an archaic solution in the modern day that excludes many people, we can at least look at the intention of it. These parameters were intended to make sure that the nation had an educated electorate. A modern re-implementation of this solution could be a civics test given to all Americans before they vote, to make sure they know the basic structures of the American government. Another possibility is the Starship Troopers solution. In the book “Starship Troopers,” by Robert Heinlein, citizens are only able to vote after they’ve completed a voluntary federal service (including many government jobs, like mail service, military, etc.). This is to prove, at the very least, that the individual is able to put the needs of the body politic in front of their own needs, demonstrating selflessness.
Now, to be clear, I don’t necessarily support any of these solutions. But my point is that they should, like all ideologies, be examined. Rather than adhering to democracy as an unquestioned ideal state of society, we should continue to scrutinize its strengths and weaknesses alongside other forms of governance. Democracy has done fantastic things for the United States and the world at large, and it’s done some horrible things. But it shouldn’t be worshiped like it is currently. By fostering a more open dialogue, we can better understand what serves the people most effectively and consider how democratic ideals might evolve, or devolve, to address future challenges for humanity.
