Democracy (n.)

This keeps coming up. So a quick word about democracy.

“Democracy” does not mean elections. It does not mean “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner” or Warren Ellis’ funny, unforgettable vulgar equivalent. It does not mean the tyranny of the majority.

The word “democracy” comes from the ancient Greek δῆμος κράτος — dêmos kratos — literally “people power”. It means not monarchy with a king who is in charge because he owns the place. Not aristocracy with a special leader-class of people who are born to it. Not theocracy by priests who derive their power from the favor of the gods. Not any special governing class, but rather a government reflecting all of the people.

Democracy means that government derives its legitimacy from the people it governs, has no separation from that populace, and acts in their service: Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people”.

It is a principle, not a particular method like voting. There are many different structural, institutional solutions to how a state may enact the principle of democracy. People who make a smug claim to political sophistication by saying “the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy” actually betray their lack of sophistication. A constitutional republic is one institutional form for democracy. Town hall meetings, referenda, juries chosen by lottery, elected representatives: all of these and more are democratic mechanisms, grounding governance in the citizenry.

Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is a particular conception of democracy. The “liberal” in this case refers neither to the 21^st century sense of the liberal-conservative political axis nor to the distinction between “liberal” and “left”, but rather means the 17^th century sense described by political philosophers like John Locke. It understands democracy to require not simply giving the majority power to enact their will; liberal democracy also provides minorities with protections and all citizens with support for universal rights. Americans should recognize this as:

all [people] are created equal [⋯] with certain unalienable rights
[⋯]
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among [people], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Liberal democracy sees government’s purpose as acting as guarantor of people’s rights which are understood to as logically prior to the government.

Liberal democracy recognizes government both as necessary for the protection of citizens’ rights and as a threat to those rights, and seeks to emphasize the former and avoid the latter by cleverly structuring government institutions. James Madison in The Federalist describes this:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Those “auxiliary precautions” include the rule of law, elections making governing representatives accountable, structural rivalries limiting government institutions through checks and balances, and so forth. Again, these institutional safeguards could take a range of different forms: the US has a bicameral legislature of geographically-defined seats plus a nationally-elected presidency, Denmark has a unicameral parliament of proportionally-represented parties plus a prime minister chosen by the legislature, and so forth.

Alas, real-world liberal democratic states are, of course, imperfect. They sometimes violate citizens’ rights, enact policies contrary to the interests of the citizenry, and so forth. As Madison described, liberal democracy is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

So I recognize why some people, frustrated by the failings of real-world liberal democracies, long for anarchist freedom or a good king or any of a number of other utopian dreams. But history teaches me that the principles of liberal democracy — despite its imperfections — delivers a better civilization than any real alternative. The way to better governance is reform — even revolutionary change — which deepens our investment in the principles of liberal democracy, not tearing it down in favor of utopian alternatives.

Another succinct description of “liberal democracy”

Much later, I found myself describing it as, well, a combination of liberalism and democracy:

Grounded in liberal principles

All people are inherently equal in rights & dignity. Therefore, society must enable the flourishing of all people. “Flourishing” is deliberately a little vague, recognizing that we have an evolving understanding of what it entails. The liberal tradition includes at least providing for universal material needs and enabling people to undertake the pursuits which they choose for themselves.

Institutions structurally bound

A bouquet of structural commitments compel institutions (notably, government) to serve liberal principles. These include rule of law, grounding political claims in rights, structural limitations on institutional action, embrace of reason in decision-making, et cetera.

Democratic government

“Government” is the distinct institution which society employs to shape itself toward liberal principles. This gives it a monopoloy on the proactive use of force.

Government must be particularly well bound by structural commitments to liberal principle, plus democracy in both principle and practice — the consent of, participation by, and accountability to all of the people in society — enacted through structural commitments like public transparency and elected representatives.

Other updates

A slightly different earlier version of this post has been republished on the Isocracy blog and in Persian (!) on CivilSocietyHowTo.

What is democracy?

A related meditation of mine that introduces another writer’s essay on the democratic spirit.

Democracy is not elections. Democracy is about all of us being in this together.

What, if not liberal democracy?

A related post of mine responding to objections to libdem governance, especially from leftists.

If you reject libdem universal rights, democratically accountable institutions, rule of law, et cetera as cursed to inevitably produce injustice, what governance principles & forms do you propose instead?

Voting, Democracy, and the People

Asking whether existing electoral systems can be meaningfully understood as democratic. I have a sense of adventure about alternative systems.

When an attempt is made to question such antidemocratic systems, the response is a mix of contempt and brutality. Voters are openly told by governing bureaucrats that they made “the wrong choice” and either blackmailed (as in the case of Greece) or just made to vote again (as in Ireland), all the while being terrorized by mass media predictions of doom should the vote not go as desired.

To describe such a process as “democracy” in any but the most superficial of senses is absurd, as is the notion that refusing to participate in this charade somehow constitutes a rejection of one’s rights as a citizen.