“Can we improve democracy?” A conversation worth having. Pt 1: Limits of democracy
This is part 1 of a 3-part series which focusses on pushing boundaries of existing systems of government
Part 1: Limits of Democracy
The need for this article
Humanity seems to be on an inexorable march forward. Despite older generations thinking that things are getting worse (something each generation seems to love doing), there is plenty of reason for optimism. Authors such as Steven Pinker have done a great job (using data) to show how technology has improved many aspects of our lives, especially ones around mortality rates.
Even as a lay observer, it can become hard to deny that we are progressing & reaching a deeper level of understanding & efficiency in most areas — biology, science, sport records, and even “convenience of consuming” for the average person today compared to the average human 100 years ago.
Inherent in all this progress is the seed of a thought– there has to be a better way. Belief in a better way is what spurs & gives confidence to many people — some of whom succeed in finding that way.
However, there are a few domains where this seed has never taken hold. Arguably, the most important one of these is around governing systems.
Different forms have been proposed from time to time, but it is an area that sees much less innovation or debate than other domains. From communist dictatorships to liberal democracies, everyone seems to be convinced that they have reached some sort of end state.
But this need not be the case. We can (and should) continue to have debates (stupid & smart) about potential step-change innovations within governments. Even within liberal democracies.
It is only when such debate & conversations occur that improvement can take place. Maybe not now, but in a hundred years. This article is an attempt to add to that discourse & encourage discussion.
In my view, it is imperative that discussions of this type become more common because I’m one of those people who strongly believes there has to be a better way — even when it comes to governance!
Why democracy rocks (credit where its due)
Many (including me) are fully bought into the hype surrounding democracy. It truly does seem like the “least worst” option of governance.
At the heart of it, the rationale for democracy can be crystallized into one governing thought: each citizen knows better than anyone else what is best for them individually.
This is a compelling thought and seems to pass the sniff test. How could it be possible that a small group of individuals (a king, army generals, politburo etc.) know what each citizen in their country wants?
The short answer is they don’t. History has shown us again and again, that those in power will only know what is best for themselves, and maybe (in case of truly altruistic leaders) what is best for their idea of their country.
However, even under the most altruistic cases, the idea of a country (in one’s mind) can be wildly divergent from what the actual citizens care about .
Each citizen knows better than anyone else what is best for them individually. That statement starts looking truer the more you think about it.
A direct implication of democratic governance is that you can only know what citizens want when they are given freedom of choice. Not in everything, but just enough freedom for them to feel in control & express their desires (either directly or through representatives).
Why democracy still sucks
I will only talk of drawbacks of perfect democracy (an imagined ideal). So I won’t delve too deep into the valid concern that most representatives within a democracy do not work for their constituents — rather they are only invested in their own political careers.
Even under a perfect democracy — my contention lies with the fact that too many citizens have to settle or compromise!
Why? Because when it comes to freedom of choice, a consensus-based system (the bedrock of democracy) breaks down after a certain population threshold is reached.
Let me illustrate with an example. Imagine a future world the population of human colonies is 75 billion people & the entire human population follows a consensus-based democratic system for decision making.
For sake of simplicity, let’s assume that in an election, voters must make a two-way choice. The final tally comes in and the results are one-sided: a 90–10 split of votes. The way forward seems clear, but consider this — 7.5 billion will not be getting what they want!
That is a big number — the same number as everyone on the planet as of right now! Imagine that, every single person you can hope to meet in today’s world is not getting what they want. That, in a nutshell, is the downside of democracy.
In contrast, think of how progressive religious choices can feel (in democratic societies). We tend to think of the religious domain as mired in “backwardness”, but when it comes to freedom of choice — religious choices seem more progressive than governance choices.
There is no “majority-wins” rule — where one is forced to follow the religion of the majority. Instead, everyone is free to practice their religion and there is freedom to believe whatever you want.
Politics still hasn’t reached that stage. Every form of governance from democracy to dictatorship seems to lead to people having to compromise or settle.
Democracy, even as the “least worst” contender, is an exercise in compromise.
Compromises are necessary when there is only a single way forward. But when they become completely enmeshed within the system, we can be forced to falsely believe that it is impossible to try two things at the same time.
For instance, in the example above, the 7.5 billion people who didn’t get what they want could move to a new planet & live without compromises.
Of course, it’s not logistically easy to do something described above. But we shouldn’t forget that it’s still a possibility.
Before we think of alternatives, let’s dig deeper into the role that governments should ideally perform to better understand what we’re optimizing for.
Read Part 2 here
