Adam Ellwanger has provided the next exhibit in my ongoing search for definitions of democracy in a piece at Human Events. Here’s the kernel of his observations:
What, then, are the essential characteristics of a true democracy? I argue there are four. The first is that the methods for the selection of candidates for office must be fair and cannot allow any particular class of citizens to have significant advantages in earning an appointment to a government position. Secondly, people in leadership positions must recognize an obligation to respond to public concerns in ways that mirror the preferences of their constituents, and they must prioritize their efforts at governance in accord with the most urgent concerns of the public. Third, a very large majority of citizens must have faith that the methods for selecting who will hold public office are fair and uncorrupted. Finally, the core non-governmental institutions that wield enormous power in the public sphere must not use that power to deliberately manipulate public opinion or decisions about politics and the direction of society. I’ll discuss each of these in turn.
A considerable amount of energy has ben expended today expressing concerns about the third “essential characteristic”, the confidence of the citizenry in institutions, but I think that we fail on all four. With respect to #3, I would submit that the decline of voter turnout in midterm elections from 75% immediately following World War II to its present roughly 55% as evidence of a decline in confidence.
Some day there will be “true democracy” (TM) in this fallen world, but I won’t be there to see it.
I think a monarchy could qualify under Ellwanger’s rules. Also, any system that does not protect minority rights is unacceptable.
No one really wants “true democracy.” It would be despotic, as we may some day soon see.
What the Swiss have is pretty close and they seem to be happy with it. Even in Switzerland it is a bit despotic or I presume would be seen as such by non-Swiss.
The Swiss are very much a consensus-driven people. But their consensus seems to support the existing social hierarchy and mores.