Another case in which I wish people would define their terms. I’m seeing a lot of opinion pieces decrying the decline of “democracy” but nowhere do they say what they mean. I believe that what they’re talking about is better described as “majoritarianism”, i.e. that one-half plus one of the voters should be able to do anything they want. The defect in that strategy is made obvious in the wisecrack that democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for lunch.
IMO democracy is only workable when there’s already broad consensus and consensus has been drastically eroded over the last several decades. Things about which most people agreed are just no longer agreed on.
Other requirements for democracy:
- Rule of law
- Gradualism
- Moderation
I think we’re too large and diverse a country for majoritarianism to work.
We have a representative democracy. Most of Europe, South America, and parts of Asia and Africa do, too, because it is how you organize big states. Some cantons in Switzerland have actual democracies, but they are tiny.
IMO the necessary conditions for any kind of democracy are a small population that is ethnically and culturally homogeneous living in a small territory. Otherwise inter-ethnic jealousies push the state to authoritarianism and dictatorship. That is the process we are undergoing now.
In practice Switzerland is a direct democracy since almost everything enacted by its legislature is subjected to referendum.
With today’s technology I expect soon to hear from those who would call for direct democracy on C-Span by the voters.
Senators would act as salesmen, pitching the act or bill they prefer, but the vote would come, as some say it should, directly from “the people”.
The Founders have been dead and now discredited too long to save us from this evil.
If we go down this path the entire word will soon be dictatorial.