Sandra Dunham
I’m sure many readers are pondering this question. The truth is, we won’t know for several years whether the impact of the U.S. election will have lasting effects on democracy in that nation and around the world. However, even before Trump was elected for a second time, I have often asked myself “Is democracy always right?” So, when political angst hit me earlier this month, I did what I always do when I am perturbed by something: a bit of digging. Starting with the question “What is democracy?” Here’s what I learned.
What we often term as democracy is “representative democracy.” This is “a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions, policies, laws, etc.” This contrasts with “pure democracy” which is “a form of government in which the people vote directly against or in favor of decisions, policies, laws, etc.” (Source Mirriam Webster.) Canada has the former and the U.S. has a combination of the two. Regardless of the type of democratic government we are discussing some of the people are going to be unhappy with the decisions all of the time. This is because democracy almost always involves a winning and a losing side. Being opposed to the decisions of government does not make that government undemocratic.
The Government of Canada concisely contrasts democracy as ‘a system of government‘ from democracy as ‘a social system;’ “it embraces inclusion and equality and can facilitate an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms. In this system, people exercise free will.” This causes me to ponder: If a country has a representative democracy and elects a government that campaigns against human rights, is the end result democratic?
Rather than wallowing in that question, I have asked why — when it seems so clear to me that equality for all is the best policy — more than half of U.S. voters have rejected this idea? And this is what brings me back to the work of CFIC. To create good governance, it is not enough that everyone has the right to vote. For good governance, it is imperative that everyone has the right to speak and to be heard. And for this to happen, these voices must be available to all. And herein lie the difficulties.
In today’s culture of social media, people are fed information that supports and then amplifies their viewpoints. It becomes almost impossible for them to change their minds. Melanie Trecek-King, when discussing critical thinking, describes the process: “You are going to go on your phone and look for something and your biases are probably going to lead you to the information that confirms what you already wanted to be true.”
As we are developing increasingly extreme ideas through the selective provision of data online and through our self-selection of information to believe, we further entrench these issues as we select friends who share our ideals and reject people who have other ideas. Discourse for the purpose of sharing ideas has been replaced by discourse for the purpose of changing minds, or discourse between like-minded people with the need to fit in and belong with a common world view.
Coming back to democracy:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.” — Winston Churchill
For me, the jury is out on what happens next. I am concerned about the lack of good information that goes into making these decisions. I am also concerned about the increasing divisiveness that is pushing people to the extremes of political options. Many comments during the 2024 election campaign in the U.S. lead me to concern about how long democracy will prevail.
However, even taking all this into consideration, I guess that democracy is the best thing we have, as imperfect as it may be. I can hate the decision, and be frustrated in the process, but at the end of the day, I have no better solution. I remain hopeful that the checks and balances put in place in the U.S. (and here in Canada) are sufficient to see that democracy prevails.
I sincerely hope you’re right in saying that “we won’t know for several years whether the impact of the U.S. election will have lasting effects on democracy in that nation and around the world.”
Academics such as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt assure us that established democracies rarely die quickly and convulsively , but slowly and “at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power.” So, Attentive Americans may have some time to assess their dangers and take corrective action should they witness the US president-elect mimicking his ally, Viktor Orbán in Hungary and moving in the direction of an “illiberal democracy.”
As for Canada, although some of the same rhetoric is plainly developing in (and out of) parliament. Before we panic, however, I think you are right to explore what we “mean” by democracy as a first step toward determining whether it is in peril. For what they’re worth, here are some of my musings on the matter – perhaps not wholly out of date for being a decade old .
Good article, Sandra!
Why do people call it “confirmation bias” when it’s really bias confirmation?
As for democracy under President Trump: If he owns the presidency (executive branch of government), both Houses of Congress (legislative branch of government), and the US Supreme Court (judicial branch of government), then we have a monarchy under King Donald. All that’s left for “checks and balances” are a few disgruntled Republicans and the American armed forces. Not a pretty democracy!