Cooper Smith
Mira Costa Student
A common criticism waged against certain governmental institutions and policies is that they are “undemocratic.” This criticism has been employed by those on both sides of the political spectrum, and at such a frequency that the argument itself has become almost cliche. We constantly talk and hear about “democratic values” but never stop to think about whether there is any merit to the system itself.
This history of democracy in the United States first began with the Age of Jackson and the rise of Jacksonian Democracy under the presidential administrations of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. During this era, the qualifications to vote for congressmen in the House of Representatives was significantly reduced with the abolition of property ownership as a requirement to vote. In 1913, the 17th Amendment was ratified. This amendment bestowed to the people the privilege of voting for Senators, a responsibility which had been vested to the state legislatures. Now that America has entered a new century, sentiments to democratize the presidency through the abolition of the Electoral College have been higher than ever. But before we as a country go and undo the work of the framers, we must act with a great deal of prudence so that we may understand what democracy would actually mean for the country.
There appears to be great inconsistency among those who claim to be in favor of democracy. Those who oppose the Electoral College will often turn around and praise the decrees of the Judiciary pertaining to issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The Judiciary, of course, is a branch composed of life-time serving judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is the most undemocratic institution of the government, yet it is covet by those who claim to support democracy. This phenomenon of those who proclaim to support democracy while also supporting undemocratic institutions was adequately described by President Erdogan of Turkey when he said “democracy is a train, and we shall get out when we arrive at our desired station.” No one, in principle, truly believes in democracy. If one is to believe that democracy is the only moral or ethical form of government, then why bother holding any individual morality? Why not allow the majority of society to make any and all decisions on your behalf? To expect this from human beings is impossible. People only believe in democracy as a means to accomplish their own end. People will readily abandon democracy when it does not suit their own desires, and quickly reclaim democracy when it does.
Just as the principle of democracy is oxymoronic to individual morality, democracy is also catastrophic to societal stability. The very nature of democracy is of extreme equality. Under a democracy, everyone has an equal say in government, therefore everyone may impose tyranny over each other. This inevitably results in the oppression of the minority at the hands of the majority as factions fight to impose control over one another. This fatal flaw in democracy is the reason why our government institutions were designed to be as undemocratic as they are. Our system was not designed to be democratic by nature, but republican by nature; as the nature of republican government is that of citizens being equal before the law, and that the citizenry may be governed by their equals as their equals. The design of the Senate demonstrates this in its egalitarian structure of each state retaining two Senators. But for the past two centuries we have been in the process of breaking down these republican institutions, as seen with the democratization of the House and the Senate, and increasing sentiments to abolish the Electoral College. But what would be done after the abolition of the Electoral College? If we wish to promote democracy, then the Judiciary would have to become democratic as well. Eventually, this process of democratization would have to conclude with the establishment of pure democracy. In order to promote democracy, every government institution would have to be completely atomized so that the people would have direct control over the functions and powers of those institutions. This would surely bring about the death of the country, as this has been the fate of almost all previous democratic societies.
Rather than promoting the barbaric system of democracy, we ought to return to our traditional structure of government, a constitutional republic. James Madison tells us that “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.” If we are to democratize, we would be dismantling the legal controls placed on our destructive behavior. If we are to restore the republic, we would be returning the restraints which protect us from ourselves.
Leave a Reply