On Democracy

Democracy passes into despotism. -Plato

In is common place in modern American, and indeed the modern world, to say that democracy is the best form of government. Yet, democracy is a relative newcomer to forms of government in the world. With the exception of some of the Greeks and the Roman republic, most governments prior to 1776 were dominated by a monarchy or some other kind of non-democratic regime. In modern times most democracies did not emerge until the mid 19th and early 20th c.'s. Thus there has not been ample time for us to truly judge the success of democracy. In Greece, democracy passed into disunity and they were conquered by the monarchical Macedonians. The Roman Republic descended into civil wars and eventually came to be dominated by the Caesars. Much of the faith in democracy has been generated by the fact that there have been few positive regimes to compare it to. Democracy looks good when it is compared to fascist, communist, or ultra-nationalist regimes. Now let me say that I am not opposed to "democracy," as the term is loosely used today. However, I do not think that the proliferation of democratic regimes means the "end of history" and I certainly do not think that democracies are the perfect form of government. Below are some of the faults of democracy that are meant not to shake our faith in democracy, necessarily, but awaken us to the fact that democracies will not lead to the epitome of government that many have dreamed they would lead us to.

*Democracies take far longer to make decisions than more authoritative regimes do.

*Democracies open way for the "tyranny of the majority." 51% of the population can enforce their will on 49%. Even if a constitution protects the rights of citizens, a large proportion of the dissenting population is forced to share in the poor decisions of the majority. If the majority leads the nation into ruins, as much as 49% of the dissenting population is forced to share in that ruin.

*The majority can confer on itself privileges at the expense of the minority; welfare, a graded income tax, corporate bailouts, labor concessions, special interests, etc.

*Democracy, ultimately, puts the hope of the nation in a common populace who may not be properly educated in politics,economics, and history. Can we really trust a populace that is ill-trained to decide on such weighty matters? (especially when they take as Gospel the broadcasts of mass media).

*Politicians can be elected purely on their popularity and ability to provide to special interest groups (labor unions, black caucuses, the NRA, big business, etc.). In a monarchy, ministers may be appointed according to merit but in a democracy they are elected by popularity.

*In parliaments with proportional representation, the vote can be splintered among a host of competing parties so that the government is hopelessly fractured. For instance, Labour, the ruling party in the United Kingdom, has a majority of only 35.2%.

*There is no centralized decision making in democracies. Bureaucracies can grow to a size and complexity that make them difficult to govern. Often there needs to be a person with great authority in charge.

*Governments that are elected do not have the permanence of other governments, such as monarchies, and therefore make decisions that are best for the present and not the long term, e.g. Keynesian economics.

*There has become an increasing apathy toward government by the general population. Not only are people ill-educated in matters of state they are apathetic towards them as well.