Does Democracy Work?

Does Democracy Work?

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

It’s not clear whether Winston Churchill ever said these words, but they do capture a certain sense of frustration with short-sighted voters stubbornly acting against their own interests.

The results of recent elections in Britain and the United States justify asking the question whether Western popular democracy is still viable.

In both cases, uninformed, emotionally driven groups voted arguably against their own interests. Is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” really the best way to run a country? The question is a valid one, and the answer is not a foregone conclusion as most of us in the West were raised to believe in the aftermath of World War 2.

We all know that Western democracy was invented in ancient Greece. Athens was the most successful, though not the only example of city-states governed “by the people, for the people”. The American and European experiments with popular democracy are the second attempt by humanity to try this form of government. Yet, Athenian democracy did not survive. After less than 2 centuries, interrupted by oligarchic coups, it was abolished by the Macedonians, and completely abandoned after the Roman conquest of Greece. Some of the lessons from its success and its failure are relevant to the modern world.

Athens had a direct popular democracy. It resembled web-based democracy in the sense that citizens voted directly and in person, and the outcome was known instantly. All male adult citizens could vote in the general assembly, the Ecclesia. Voting was considered not just a right but a duty. The Ecclesia elected an executive body called the Boule, made up of 500 members. However, eligibility to serve in the Boule was limited to people with sufficient political experience and stable incomes. This was meant to guarantee rational judgment. In other words, there was always an implicit recognition that not everyone is equally qualified to be a statesman, and that experienced, successful people were more likely to make good public servants, though they would remain accountable to the Ecclesia. Athenian democracy did not develop spontaneously as a grass-roots movement. It was carefully designed by highly skilled legislators like Solon, Kleistenes and Ephialtes, in an effort to quell the never-ending squabbles between the aristocracy and the middle class. These people were highly educated intellectuals with legal and philosophical backgrounds. The same was true of the most successful leaders Athenians selected, like Pericles. These men were opinion leaders who were sophisticated thinkers trained in philosophical and military matters.

Athenians despised those who didn’t participate in politics. Pericles is quoted by Thucydides as having said that “Just because you do not take an interest in politics...does not mean that politics won't take an interest in you.” In fact, the modern insult “idiot” is derived from the Greek “idiotes” or “self-absorbed person who is not engaged in politics" (idio = self).

Importantly, citizens could file motions for the removal from office of a public official seen as incompetent or biased.

This process worked best during the golden age of Athens, when the city was an economic, cultural and military superpower in the Mediterranean. It faltered into ineffective squabbling when things got tough during the Peloponnesian war, which Athens eventually lost to Sparta. Sparta was a military dictatorship with two simultaneous, non-hereditary kings. Both Athens and Sparta were swept away by the Macedonians, an imperial monarchy. Under the Macedonian emperor Alexander the Great, Greece came to dominate much of the Middle East and Persia. However, the entire Mediterranean world including Greece and Macedonia was eventually conquered by the Roman Republic, an aristocratic oligarchy with a Senate, two single-term elected presidents and token representation of the working class. Of course, Rome too eventually became an imperial monarchy, but that development marked the beginning of its decadence. None of the ancient systems of government was clearly superior to the others.

There are important differences between Athenian democracy and modern ones:

1)      The working class, which in the ancient world consisted largely of indentured servants (slaves who could purchase their own freedom) did not vote. Voting citizens were middle class (merchants and professionals) and aristocrats. Democracy was instituted to end a constant power struggle between these two groups.

2)      The 10 territorial groups (phylae) in Attica were equally represented in the Boule, but took turns to occupy important posts. Vote tallies in the Ecclesia were not adjusted based on phylae quotas. In other words, Athens did not have an electoral college.

In summary, several factors contributed to the success of Athenian democracy:

1)      A highly engaged, informed body of voters all of whom had a stake in the success of the state

2)      Common enemies that reinforced internal unity (the Persians, the Spartans)

3)      A strong economy that benefited all voters

4)      A shared culture of which all Athenians were proud

Similar conditions existed in the early days of the United States. The American founding fathers and their European counterparts were classically educated, and knew Greco-Roman history. The systems they built were originally meant to be hybrids between Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. They did not include universal suffrage and they always acknowledged that rulers would have to come from an intellectual and/or financial elite (more on this in the next post).

The truly revolutionary concept was government accountability to the people, which implied the disappearance of despotic monarchy. Of course, “the people” did not include women, the poor, the illiterate, and slaves.

Universal suffrage did not exist until the 20^th century. It is a noble ideal and, at least on paper, the fairest form of shared governance. Every adult regardless of origin, nationality, education or socioeconomic status has a vote. However, a system based on universal suffrage is also more vulnerable than Greek democracy or early American democracy. It depends on essential conditions including:

1)      A quality public education system, so that every voter regardless of socioeconomic status is sufficiently knowledgeable and rational to vote based on a clear understanding of the choices he or she is presented with.

2)     A fundamental agreement that everyone has a stake in the success of the state.

3)     Unbiased representation of the popular vote.

I am going to argue that, in America as well as in European democracies, these conditions are no longer uniformly satisfied, and that because of this, modern Western democracies are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

1)      In Britain as well as in America, the outcomes of recent, momentous votes were heavily influenced by poorly educated voters who were misled by pervasive propaganda and lacked the critical skills to protect themselves from such manipulations. Many of these people voted against their own long term interests because they did not have a clear understanding of the choices in front of them. They were irrationally influenced by emotional argument and blindly believed demonstrably false. That is an indictment of educational systems which fail to produce responsible voters.

2)      Large numbers of “protest voters” on both sides of the Atlantic felt, rightly or wrongly, that they did not have a stake in the success of their societies. Hence,  they found it easy to sabotage “the establishment”, without thinking of the consequences. It’s conceivable that if Athenians had let the slave class vote, they would have had protest votes as well. “I don’t care if I destroy everything, because this system isn’t working for me. I just want change, not matter what” is a feeling commonly expressed by protest voters. While these groups in America and Europe do have legitimate grievances, it is highly unlikely that they will benefit from the destruction they bring about. “Change” can be for better or worse, but fear and frustration are not the best counselors.

3)     Finally, at least in America, the electoral system built in the 18^th century to satisfy the interests of Southern slave-holding colonies does not faithfully represent the popular vote. Due to demographic trends that would have been impossible to predict in 1787, the US now has an electoral college that vastly over-represents the least productive, most backward parts of the country, while giving disproportionately low representation to the most dynamic, diverse, economically productive parts of the country. This vulnerability in the system has produced a paradoxical result in the last election, whereby a candidate who represented approximately two thirds of the national GDP and received over 2 million votes more than her opponent “lost” the presidential election.  As a result, a majority of American voters are now essentially subjected to taxation without representation, the very condition that triggered the American revolution. Parliamentary systems are less vulnerable to this particular form of bias.

Due to these and other factors, Western democracies are increasingly fractious, representing deeply divided societies with limited room for consensus. Protest parties are appearing everywhere, and extremism in on the rise.

In brief, democracy is, ideally, the fairest system of government. However, it doesn't always work and it doesn't guarantee the best outcomes for voters. Its success and sustainability depends on essential conditions that must be satisfied.

Will Western-style democracy survive, or will it fail again as it did in Athens 23 centuries ago?

The jury, I am afraid, is still out.