What Happens when democracy fails?
A narrow definition of ‘failure of democracy’ defines it in terms of; flawed electoral administration / practices, lack of freedom of press and lack of the ‘rule of law’.I believe that such a definition is deficient and unreliable, because lack of freedom of press; flawed electoral practices or the lack of the rule of law; don’t always cause 'undemocratic governance' or 'democracy failure'.
When the aforementioned conditions are prevailing there is the absence of the environmental factors that facilitate majority rule, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is an absence of majority rule (or that there is democracy failure).
I believe that it is possible—however remotely—for majority rule to exist in the absence of freedom of press; when flawed electoral practices are prevalent, or; when there is a general lack of the rule of law.
In my opinion democracy fails when all of the following conditions are satisfied;
- When the ‘majority’ is systematically and progressively stripped—through legislative means or the application economical pressure—of its right to freely determine its own destiny. This right can be stripped by the government in power, or can be stripped by external forces e.g. other governments through sanctions, or, terrorist groups etc.
- When an increasing proportion of the key decisions being made by government, reflect more of the wishes of the ‘people in power’ and less of the desires of the ‘majority’ that they represent.
- When there is a progressive decline in social welfare, which can be wholly attributed to policy decisions made by the 'people in power'. For the democratic system of governance to have failed under this consideration; it’ll have to perform worse than the previous form of governance (e.g. monarchy, a dictatorship etc) in the allocation of resources and social welfare.
Possible causes of Failure
1) Excessive Individualism in an environment characterized by depleting natural resources and slow adoption of technology:
I firmly believe that all forms of governance fail because of human nature. Human beings are inherently selfish, and, most of their actions serve to achieve self-preservation and self-gratification.
At times, individual pursuits compromise the welfare of the broader society. In a laissez faire capitalist system, the main assumption is that the welfare of society as a whole is served through the free pursuit of individual interests.
However, in global environment characterized by depleting natural resources and slow adoption of technology; the human trait—of self-preservation and self-gratification—may inspire excessive ‘cutthroat’ competition for the control of natural resources. Excessive ‘cutthroat’ competition on a broad scale can undermine the foundations of a democracy; as individuals progressively seek ways of influencing the democratic process—in a bid to gain greater control of resources.
In an environment with excessive ‘cutthroat’ competition, those who are best positioned—intellectually, economically and politically—to manipulate the democracy to serve their individual interests, will swiftly do so.
Their first mover advantage enables them to progressively gain greater influence within the democracy. Otherwise expressed: the first-mover has a ‘runaway train’ of capabilities—within the democracy—that yields exponentially increasing rewards; in a self-reinforcing cycle that doesn’t allow other agents to catch-up.
The majority will inevitably loose its right to determine its own destiny, to a politically manipulative group of individuals, (oligarchs) that is trying to gain more control of depleting natural resources. Hence, it can be argued that unchecked laissez faire capitalism—in an environment characterized by rapidly depleting natural resources and slow adoption of technology—may contribute to the collapse of democratic systems of governance.
2) Implementation of a democratic system; when the potential leadership of the society is not adequately empowered—economically and intellectually—to participate in a democratic political system of governance:
I have observed that the main cause of failure in young democracies—particularly in the developing world—is a leadership that is incapable of administering a democracy effectively. This may be caused by educational deficiencies and/or, lack of experience in the administration of advanced political systems.
There are a lot of political parties—especially in infant democracies—that do not have formal on-going programmes of coaching and educating their leadership (on issues of democratic governance and administration).
Most politicians in parties like these, only have experience with democratic procedures at party level; which are fundamentally different and vastly less complex to administer (when compared to democratic governance procedures at a national level).
When such a party wins a democratic election, it usually ‘assumes office’ rapidly (where a more gradual transition to power would have suited). The party assigns it’s key political figures to strategic positions in government—without (or with negligible) training on the administration of a national democracy.
The likelihood of mal-administration of a democracy by such a government is significantly higher; as the government generally lacks the skill-set required for managing—efficiently and effectively—such a complex system of governance. More often than not, the government makes costly mistakes in the administration of the democracy; which results in the failure of the democratic system of governance in their respective country.
This is best illustrated Plato’s Ship Analogy, taken from his book; The Republic
In this analogy, Plato likens the state to a complex and high-priced ship:
“For a ship, to accomplish a safe and successful journey, it needs an expert navigator at the helm; a captain who knows the capacities of the vessel, geography, meteorology, water currents, navigational astronomy, supplies management, and other related matters. An ignorant and untrained person at the helm of a ship would endanger vessel, cargo, crew, and passengers alike. “
This analogy simply implies that a state needs competent leaders at the helm. The leaders have to be intellectually competent and possess the skill-set required to administer a democracy efficiently and effectively. If there are incompetent / inexperienced leaders at the helm of a democracy, it is bound to fail.
I have observed that the main cause of failure in young democracies—particularly in the developing world—is a leadership that is incapable of administering a democracy effectively. This may be caused by educational deficiencies and/or, lack of experience in the administration of advanced political systems.
There are a lot of political parties—especially in infant democracies—that do not have formal on-going programmes of coaching and educating their leadership (on issues of democratic governance and administration).
Most politicians in parties like these, only have experience with democratic procedures at party level; which are fundamentally different and vastly less complex to administer (when compared to democratic governance procedures at a national level).
When such a party wins a democratic election, it usually ‘assumes office’ rapidly (where a more gradual transition to power would have suited). The party assigns it’s key political figures to strategic positions in government—without (or with negligible) training on the administration of a national democracy.
The likelihood of mal-administration of a democracy by such a government is significantly higher; as the government generally lacks the skill-set required for managing—efficiently and effectively—such a complex system of governance. More often than not, the government makes costly mistakes in the administration of the democracy; which results in the failure of the democratic system of governance in their respective country.
This is best illustrated Plato’s Ship Analogy, taken from his book; The Republic
In this analogy, Plato likens the state to a complex and high-priced ship:
“For a ship, to accomplish a safe and successful journey, it needs an expert navigator at the helm; a captain who knows the capacities of the vessel, geography, meteorology, water currents, navigational astronomy, supplies management, and other related matters. An ignorant and untrained person at the helm of a ship would endanger vessel, cargo, crew, and passengers alike. “
This analogy simply implies that a state needs competent leaders at the helm. The leaders have to be intellectually competent and possess the skill-set required to administer a democracy efficiently and effectively. If there are incompetent / inexperienced leaders at the helm of a democracy, it is bound to fail.
3) Democracy that’s too inclusive usually fails in an environment characterized by an accelerated rate of change:
There is such a thing as 'too much democracy', especially in an environment characterized by accelerated-rates of change (i.e. political, economical, social and technological change).
In such a dynamic environment, a highly inclusive form of democracy—where the majority is consulted on the majority of key policy considerations—consultation takes-up a significant amount of government time and material resources (that could otherwise have been put to more efficient uses).
There is increased policy-lag-time, which increases the likelihood of implementing policies at sub-optimal time i.e. when it’s too late. When policies are mistimed, this essentially means that the will of the majority is being exercised at the wrong time; which may negatively impact social welfare. This, in essence, is another cause of failure of the democratic system of governance.
4) Lack of the willingness (by the majority) to participate in democratic processes;
Democracy may not function effectively, when the majority is unwilling to exercise its right to self–determination (through democratic mechanisms like elections and referendums).
If the majority of eligible participants within a democratic system do not exercise their right to suffrage, then democratic mechanisms like elections will only reflect the wishes/choices of the minority that has participated i.e. the will of the majority will not be served through democratic mechanisms.
There are many underlying factors that may cause a display of apathy towards democratic mechanisms (by a majority);
There is such a thing as 'too much democracy', especially in an environment characterized by accelerated-rates of change (i.e. political, economical, social and technological change).
In such a dynamic environment, a highly inclusive form of democracy—where the majority is consulted on the majority of key policy considerations—consultation takes-up a significant amount of government time and material resources (that could otherwise have been put to more efficient uses).
There is increased policy-lag-time, which increases the likelihood of implementing policies at sub-optimal time i.e. when it’s too late. When policies are mistimed, this essentially means that the will of the majority is being exercised at the wrong time; which may negatively impact social welfare. This, in essence, is another cause of failure of the democratic system of governance.
4) Lack of the willingness (by the majority) to participate in democratic processes;
Democracy may not function effectively, when the majority is unwilling to exercise its right to self–determination (through democratic mechanisms like elections and referendums).
If the majority of eligible participants within a democratic system do not exercise their right to suffrage, then democratic mechanisms like elections will only reflect the wishes/choices of the minority that has participated i.e. the will of the majority will not be served through democratic mechanisms.
There are many underlying factors that may cause a display of apathy towards democratic mechanisms (by a majority);
- The majority’s lack of faith in the democratic systems ability to solve its problems, and or, the ruling government’s ability to manage a democratic system objectively.
- Great negative environmental pressure that threatens the survival of a majority; may cause the majority to become pre-occupied by problems of survival; to the point of showing great apathy towards anything that doesn’t immediately eradicate an imminent threat to its survival.
- My belief is that there are cultures that are more passive than others, and, that voter apathy shows strong positive correlation to culturally-influenced-passiveness. If the passiveness is deeply ingrained in the fabric of the society, and, if the society is highly conservative; then democracy has a high likelihood of failure.
This is just part of the 1st draft of the essay--it is a work in progress and lacks the support of empirical evidence.
