Has Democracy Become a Threadbare Reality?

The idea that governments are the instrument of the people rather than an established ruling class became universally accepted as a feature of "evolved civilization" at some point in the 20th century. It is applied even in many traditional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom and Spain, though exceptions exist, notably in the Arabian Peninsula.

Modern dictatorships in the Marxist tradition think of themselves as governments of the people and for the people, though to a limited extent by the people. Otherwise, the standard model in most people's minds is a liberal democracy, which essentially means a system in which ordinary people can cultivate the ambition to govern their peers and can hope to earn their trust by appealing to a popular vote. The fact that governments are elected by the people should mean that no outcome decided by a privileged class or obscure clan is foreordained. Crises may occur – due for example, to abuse of power – but they are rarely expected to destabilize a system that has empowered the people to impose their will. Such crises represent challenges to overcome not proof of the defeat of democracy.

Increasingly in recent years, public voices have begun lamenting the fragility of democracy and even predicting its demise. The crisis began long ago. But it has been unfolding in an increasingly visible manner ever since the 2000 presidential election in the United States. That was the historical moment in which the fate of the United States – and therefore of the world – teetered on the edge of a hanging chad. The unease lasted in the following years, punctuated by clearly abusive wars and a massive collapse in 2008 of the economic system associated with the idea of democracy. Then it reached a paroxysm in 2016, a year marked by the unexpected results of an absurd referendum in the United Kingdom and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.

Democracy has always been about debate. But debate has all but turned away from its original model, human dialogue aiming at the intelligent sharing and exchange of information. Dialogue implies seeking some form of mutual understanding to mitigate conflict, a state that if allowed to fester can only be resolved by the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. At a time when the White House and the official theoreticians of security in the United States evoke a "battle brewing between authoritarianism and democracy," the confusion about what democracy means and how it translates into government has never been greater. Contemporary democracy appears to have cultivated a taste for conflict and the minimizing of dialogue.

At the core of the problem is the idea, not that people in democracies are called upon to deliberate on their form of government and its policies, but that democracy is conveniently and definitively summed up in the contests we call elections. Instead of the government of the people, by the people, for the people, we have evolved towards the government of the people, by the polls, and for the political marketers. A professional class dominated by marketers has taken over the traditional role that aristocracies had in pre-democratic nations. The shift from open popular debate focused on issues to be resolved to elections as horse races to entertain the public has been radically successful. Even the most sophisticated media have bought into this logic.

In a New York Times article with the title, "Democrats Fear for Democracy, Why Aren't They Running on It in 2022?" The authors, Reid J. Epstein and Jonathan Weisman, disapprove of the strategy Democratic candidates appear to have adopted that consists of focusing on economic issues rather than the mechanics of democracy. While noting that Republicans haven't given up the specious claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, they agree with one Democratic operative who insists, "We need to be making sure people are aware of just how real the threat to democracy is."

Today's Weekly Devil's Dictionary definition: