The Promise and Perils of Democracy

Humans, throughout history, didn’t practice democratic form of society. At least if we consider to explore as far back as the time before ancient Greece. Because that’s where democracy primarily came from. Or did it? A study published in the Science magazine, which was conducted by Lane Fargher, says that there was democracy even before Greece in ancient Mexico, at least some form of it.

Democracy isn’t a one-shot deal that happened one time. It comes and goes, and it’s very difficult to sustain.

Richard Blanton, Purdue University

We seem to be in total comfort whenever we hear the word democracy. As if someone is doing some kind of peace offering of some sort. In other words, we have radically given it positive connotation. This statement or this article isn’t trying to espouse any other deviant form of democracy, authoritarianism, or communism. This is simply a perspective from a neutral point of view.

Freedom House’s study of global freedom in the twentieth century revealed that despite tyranny, total war, and genocide, it also saw a significant increase in democracy. By 2000, the number of democracies had reached 120, the largest proportion in human history. There was not a single country in 1900 that would qualify by today’s standards as a democracy.

Jason Brennan’s Epistocracy Theory

Jason Brennan, in Against Democracy, critiques the conventional glorification of democracy and introduces an alternative system called “epistocracy” – rule by the knowledgeable. Brennan’s view stems from his analysis of how democratic participation often results in uninformed or irrational decision-making. He argues that most citizens fall into three categories: hobbits (apathetic and uninformed), hooligans (politically biased and dogmatic), and vulcans (rational and informed). Brennan believes that democracy, which empowers the majority regardless of their competence, is inherently flawed because the majority of voters are either hobbits or hooligans. Consequently, he proposes an epistocratic system where political power is allocated based on knowledge and competence rather than simple equal voting rights. His theory is a direct challenge to the idealized notions of equality in democratic participation. Brennan suggests that epistocracy can lead to more competent governance by limiting the political influence of the uninformed and allowing the informed to make more effective decisions for the public good.

Researchgate

Brennan’s arguments for epistocracy have generated substantial debate within political philosophy. The central idea of restricting political power based on knowledge is met with both criticism and support. Critics argue that any system that limits participation risks reinforcing existing inequalities. For instance, detractors like David Estlund acknowledge that expertise is valuable but challenge the assumption that it should automatically grant political authority. Estlund coined the “expert/boss fallacy,” emphasizing that being an expert doesn’t justify ruling over others. Furthermore, empirical studies highlight concerns about how such knowledge-based hierarchies could reinforce elitism, undermining fairness and potentially increasing disenfranchisement among marginalized groups.

Brennan’s critique of democratic participation is supported by empirical research, as he cites studies revealing widespread political ignorance and irrational voting patterns. For example, research from political scientists like Philip Converse and Larry Bartels demonstrates that most voters possess little factual knowledge about key political issues. While Brennan’s theory resonates with scholars concerned about the quality of political decision-making, the epistocratic model remains theoretical, with little real-world application to test its effectiveness.

Other scholars argue that democracy, despite its flaws, provides intrinsic value by promoting equality, civic engagement, and political accountability. John Stuart Mill’s arguments for participatory democracy still hold sway, suggesting that while political ignorance exists, democratic participation can cultivate better-informed citizens over time, countering Brennan’s more pessimistic stance.

The Rise of Authoritarianism Worldwide

Democracy, once heralded as the pinnacle of governance, is facing an unprecedented crisis on a global scale. Authoritarian regimes are not only consolidating power within their borders but also actively undermining democratic institutions elsewhere. Countries like China and Russia have become adept at using digital technology and disinformation to project their influence, stifling democratic movements in nations striving for freedom. This transnational authoritarianism poses a significant threat, as it spreads tactics that subvert democratic processes while promoting an alternative model of governance that prioritizes state control over individual rights. The result is a world increasingly divided between those who seek democratic freedoms and those who embrace autocratic rule.

The Erosion of Democratic Norms

Democratic backsliding has become a defining feature of contemporary politics, affecting both newly democratized nations and established democracies. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), more than a quarter of the world’s population now lives in countries experiencing democratic decline. This erosion manifests through the manipulation of electoral processes, marginalization of opposition voices, and the systematic dismantling of checks and balances. As political elites capture institutions meant to serve the public, citizens increasingly feel disenfranchised, leading to widespread disillusionment with the very systems designed to represent them.her democracy can survive its current challenges or if it is merely an ideal that fails to deliver on its promises.

The Iroquois Confederacy: A Model of Participatory Democracy

While ancient Greece and India provide early examples of proto-democratic societies, the Iroquois Confederacy, a union of six Native American nations in what is now the northeastern United States, offers a more recent model of participatory democracy. The Iroquois Confederacy was founded in the 16th century and operated based on consensus decision-making, with representatives from each nation meeting in a Grand Council to discuss matters of common concern. The Iroquois system of government was highly decentralized, with each nation retaining its autonomy while working together on shared issues. The Grand Council was composed of 50 sachems (chiefs), with each nation having a set number of representatives. Decisions were made by consensus, and the sachems were expected to consult with their communities before making important choices. This model of participatory democracy, based on the principles of equality, consensus, and decentralization, has influenced modern democratic thought and practice.

The Struggle for Inclusive Democracy

Throughout history, the struggle for democracy has often focused on expanding participation and inclusion. In ancient Athens, for example, while the system was considered democratic for its time, it excluded women, slaves, and foreigners from political participation. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that many countries granted women the right to vote, and even today, certain groups, such as immigrants, migrant workers, prisoners, and children, are often denied the right to vote in established democracies.The struggle for inclusive democracy continues, as societies strive to ensure that all citizens have a voice in the political process. This involves not only expanding the franchise but also addressing systemic inequalities and barriers to participation. As philosopher Albert Camus noted,

“Democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the minority.”

Ensuring that the interests and rights of all citizens are protected is a fundamental challenge for modern democracies