For the past five years or so we have been told that our democracy is in great peril. And it seems like political talking heads and politicians charge each other with being “undemocratic” as a way to discredit opponents. What is more, it seems like everyone has a different definition of democracy to serve their own agenda.
So, what is democracy? One of the best descriptions of democracy comes from an article written by John Gerring and his colleagues titled “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach.” The authors outline six dimensions of democracy, which include: majoritarianism, participation, liberalism, egalitarianism, deliberation, and elections.
First, majoritarianism is a technical way to say that the people hold supreme political power in a system in which the majority rules. Terms synonymous with majoritarianism include “popular sovereignty” and “consent of the governed,” which mean, essentially, that the government is of, for, and by the people, not a king or elite ruling class.
The second dimension, participation, includes direct rule by the people also referred to as direct democracy (think ballot measures) as well as citizens casting votes, attending public events like townhalls and assemblies, engaging in primary races, testifying at public hearings. Social movement activism both inside and outside of political institutions also qualifies as a form of democratic participation.
Liberalism, the next dimension, does not refer to the left wing of the political spectrum or Democrat Party, but rather to a political philosophy championed by philosophers like John Locke. The basic tenets of the political philosophy of liberalism include the protection of natural rights of all individuals and the restriction of both tyrannical governments and citizens infringing on others’ rights. As such, this dimension of democracy includes the rule of law that applies to all, rights for both majorities and minorities, transparency in governance, and the ability to hold the state accountable through co-equal branches of government.
Gerring and his co-authors define the fourth dimension, egalitarianism, as a government policy or action “…that achieves equal participation, equal representation, equal protection (civil liberties extended to all and due process for all), and equal resources (such as income, education, and health).” There is broad agreement that democratic governments should provide equal protection, create conditions for equal participation, and ensure more or less equal representation. However, there are valid objections to the government providing equal resources to its citizens, especially when it comes to redistributing wealth created in the private sector. When it comes to government run programs distributing the state’s resources (like licenses) it’s easier to make the case for equal access to resources.
Deliberation, the fifth dimension, involves processes “in which public reasoning on the common good motivates political decisions” and discussions “among informed and competent participants who are open to persuasion.” In other words, the ways in which we debate and discuss political matters should be guided by mutually beneficial rules, based on rational, good faith arguments, and decision makers should be qualified, honest thinkers. Policymaking in a democratic context requires productive discussions, the exchange of ideas, and robust debates. These principles should also shape how citizens approach political topics, as well.
The final dimension of democracy included in the article is the electoral dimension, which Gerring and his colleagues define as “the idea that democracy is achieved through competition among leadership, which vie for the electorate’s support during periodic elections before a broad electorate.” This means that elections in and of themselves do not guarantee a democratic government since totalitarian regimes also held elections. Democratic elections require true competition in which all of the eligible voters are able free to vote for whomever they want, the outcome of elections is not determined by elites but rather the voters, and elections must be held regularly. Also, both the winners and losers should trust that the electoral process has been fair.
Even though there is room for valid debates on the best way to enact these dimensions, I think it is safe to say that most reasonable people would say that these dimensions embody good democratic principles for which we should strive. That being said, good principles and values can conflict with each other. For example, the rule of the majority (majoritarianism) can trample on the rights of minorities (liberalism), a problem Tocqueville and others called “the tyranny of the majority.” Also, placing reasonable rules on political discussions to facilitate the exchange of ideas (deliberation) can also limit widespread participation (participatory and egalitarian dimensions). As such, creating a democracy while balancing all six of these dimensions so that one does not cancel out another is a more daunting task than most of us realize.
I also think that this should caution us from claiming that the other side is undemocratic unless that is in fact the case. These dimension-balancing debates are worth having and should not be dismissed as unequivocally undemocratic. Other times policies that place undue limits on speech, curb the free exercise of religion, and encourage election tampering are clearly undemocratic and should be called out as such.
This is all well and good, but there’s a catch. America is not a pure democracy. Its founders intentionally created a democratic republic because most founders (Thomas Jefferson being a notable exception) feared that the direct rule of the people would inevitably lead to mob rule and the destruction of the very democracy that created it. So, what distinguishes a democracy from a republic?
Democracies meet the criteria explained above in the six dimensions of democracy, whereas republics are defined as having elected representatives (instead of a pure, direct democracy), an elected head of state, constitutional rule, and are typically comprised of a collection of smaller states or providences with different levels of government. And of course, these forms of government are not mutually exclusive since America is both a democracy and a republic (see https://blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference for more on this).
Even so, most of us call the American system a democracy, and while this is technically incomplete, it is accurate enough for our purposes. And our purposes here are to answer these questions: Is our democracy in danger? If so, what is the source of this danger? How can we save the American democracy from the problems that plague it?
This piece provides an explanation of democracy that is useful for understanding upcoming series on Modest Proposals that explore the state of the American democracy. The first of these series is titled “Is Democracy Here for the Party?” which will debut on Thursday, August 5, 2021.