Democracy vs Authoritarianism

Overview:

The development of government systems has been a continuing dilemma for the entire existence of mankind. As populations increased and the need for some form of societal rules developed, this quest has been ongoing and contested. It was as basic as survival in its original form and the evolution naturally moved to an authoritarian answer where the weak (followers) looked to the strong (leaders) to protect them from other groups that were a threat. This was a fundamental process based on well-understood principles of human nature.

Generally, it worked. Tribes became communities, cities, territories and eventually countries. It was clearly a process of conflict in which violence and wars determined which group would rule. We like to think that in today’s world this has been modernized or softened into a more rational or less violent process, but the continuing occurrence of wars clearly demonstrates otherwise.

As this process advanced throughout history, there have been a variety of ideas on the ideal way to organize societies and a plethora of systems exist across the approximate 195 countries of today.

Democracy is an ancient concept but its adoption on a broad scale probably has its roots in the Magna Carta era around 1215 AD. This movement attempted to strip absolute power from a monarch and subject this authoritarian to the rule of law whereby a very limited democratic group would establish those laws. Over several centuries this led to a Constitutional Monarchy whereby the king/queen became a figurehead of state with little direct political power.

It became the model for the establishment of the United States of America in 1776 as a republic through another war of independence. The monarch would become a President that would be elected by a limited democratic group. At that point, only a relatively small group of wealthy or land-owning men had the right to vote.

The movement that led to the expansion of those with the franchise was a group known as the Chartists. Growing over many decades, it took its name from ‘The People’s Charter of 1838’ when this movement for manhood suffrage was successful.

Those with the right to vote expanded to a much larger percentage of the population throughout the 19th century as the global movement for manhood suffrage was successful. It was adopted in the US around 1860 and was broadened to include black Americans and women by around 1920. This higher percentage of citizens, that were part of the electorate, realized the conceptual level of ‘The People’ that the word Democracy and the U.S. Constitution actually meant.

An overlooked but critical feature of modern democracy:

The People’s Charter called for six reforms in their quest to add a significant element of democracy to the political system.

1. The main objective called for the right to voter for every man aged twenty and above.
2. The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property requirements for Representatives to allow voters to select the man of their choice.
4. Payment of Representatives to enable tradesmen, working men and other persons of modest means to interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
5. Equal constituencies assuring the same representation for the same number of electors.
6. Annual elections to avoid bribery and intimidation.

It is item #2, Secret Ballot, that is often overlooked as a critical principle. Almost everyone today takes for granted that voting by secret ballot eliminates most forms of corruption in elections. By requiring that the vote is anonymous, the voter is allowed to vote their conscience and is protected from coercion or threats for doing so. This protection is assured due to basic aspects of human nature that are easy to understand:

1. No person or group trying to buy or coerce someone to vote in a certain way would trust an individual to do so when they cannot verify the result.
2. No person trying to sell their vote or gain advantage would be able to prove they voted as required.

Thus, individuals or special interest groups with wealth and power have no opportunity to corrupt an election when secret ballot is used. No elector has an opportunity to profit from casting their vote in a designated way. The purity of an election that conveys the true desires of the voters is assured by this simple process.

You can be assured, in the absence of this protection, wealthy individuals and powerful special interest groups would use coercion to accomplish their objectives. This has been demonstrated consistently throughout history whenever a voting process uses open balloting.

Today’s movement toward Authoritarianism:

So why are we seeing powerful individuals and special interest groups growing their power and influence in most democratic countries today? Why are we increasingly faced with societal issues where the powerful and wealthy seem to control legislation. Authoritarian individuals and groups like; the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the NRA, the Environmentalists, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left-wing extremists, Right-wing extremists, Racially focused groups, Religious groups, Corporate entities, power-seeking individuals and a myriad of Lobbyist representing special interests seeking to control government.

The answer to this is quite simple and relatively obvious but the public, the media, the think tanks and influencers that express serious concerns in this matter seem to be blind to it. It is easiest to explain this phenomena using the USA as the example, but the principle applies to all democratic nations in today’s world.

The Systemic Change that caused this problem:

Throughout the historical period since the 1200’s, the movement to democratize former authoritarian systems gradually gained momentum. The 20th century, even with two world wars, continued to display the incredible prosperity gernated by the more democratic and less authoritarian countries of the world. The most successful experiment in this progress was the establishment of the United States of American in 1776. According to the PEW Research Center, Public Trust in Government during the first half of the 20th century consistently ranged in the 75% to 90% level. This metric began a serious downward trend in the mid to late 60’s as the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement and political assassinations spawned a decade of public protests and violence. The public wanted a solution and that solution was found.

As always, the public blamed their government and the public debate gradually developed a theme in this discussion that was directed at their representatives. The concept was to find a way to hold their representatives more accountable. The solution evolved and the slogan of ‘Transparency’ became the panacea for all. This idea was broadly accepted and legislation was passed with almost unanimous support. It continues to this day as a confirmation bias that blinds most to the negative impact of this remedy.

The Congressional Reorganization Act of 1970 was enacted to realize teh promised benefits of transparency in government. It had two specific requirements to assure all voters had the ability to monitor their representatives.

1. It required all votes in Congress to be Recorded Votes.
2. It required all Committee Meetings to be open to the Public.

Now let’s think about these changes from the perspective discussed in the first part of this article. These changes basically converted the voting process of our representatives from one which was ‘relatively secret’ to one which was absolutely ‘open.’ Let’s compare these opposite systemic rules for making a democratic (majority) decision on issues:

1. When voting on an issue is the person protected from coercion or threats by others?
   • Electors………………….Yes
   • Representative………No
2. When voting on an issue is the person liable to lose their job if not conforming to orders?
   • Electors…………………..No
   • Representative………Yes
3. When voting on an issue is the voter prevented from selling their vote?
   • Electors…………………..Yes
   • Representatives……..No
4. When voting on an issue is the voter allowed to negotiate/compromise to get reasonable outcome?
   • Electors…………………..N/A
   • Representatives…….No

It is rare that individual electors monitor how representatives vote on issues. It is universal that special interest groups, lobbyists, corporate organizations, PAC’s, etc. keep exacting records on every representative’s stance on every issue. These groups use their financial wealth to legally bribe or coerce representatives via campaign contributions and media advertising. Beyond this we see threats, often proffered via social media, encouraging extremists toward violent actions that lead to injury or even death to assure conformance.

This systemic change to accomplish Transparency in Government has actually assured that coercion, corruption, threats and violence will increasingly be used to control legislation. It has guaranteed the continued movement toward authoritarianism.

Adam Smith