A Discourse On Democracy

Throughout human history, the concept of “voting” has shifted in many ways and has encompassed new traditions. Athens for example followed a strict though contradictory form of direct democracy. Where only “Free Men” were allowed to vote on any proposal, America followed a similar doctrine in their application of a “Democratic Republic '' in the early days of its founding. Though these applications were flawed, let's ask, what is the proper application of democracy? 

Democracy in the broadest of definitions is “rule by the people''. This includes “consent by the people” in the case of representative democracy. Now, by which people should we be ruled? Here is where those “rulers” run into the first problem, who should be included/excluded, and how can we justify this inclusion or exclusion in the democratic process? Through axioms of who should be able to vote, we will be able to better understand issues that arise from our common understanding. Pragmatically we can assert that one ought to be part of the nation-state of which they are participating, as it would be imprudent to include those who have a less benevolent stake in the nation's prosperity. Secondly, those who heinously infringe on the rights afforded by the said nation-state (this is for extremely violent crimes, or those treasonous to the state) as we can induce that if one is to engage in the violation of the rights of others, have willingly revoked their right to participate in the democratic process. 

Factions

Democracy is based on the participation of its citizens in a way not expected of other forms of governance such as where a single despotic ruler is given absolute authority over the preponderance of their subjects.  The main mode of said participation is “voting”, the process by which we either engage in voting in small forums within our city or in electing someone who represents our interest.  And unlike other forms of governance, democracy allows for the creation and stimulation of “factions”, an organized allegiance of people founded on similar interests. This presents a problem of “Majority Factions '. I.E the interest of the “most” in a given organized population. 

While these factions aren’t inherently a bad thing. They can lead to extremely catastrophic outcomes, in a hyperbolic example, let’s assume that a majority of a population's main interest is eradicating a group based on immutable characteristics. This faction, through the faculties given by a democratic system, has engaged in their democratic interest. If one is to believe that humans are morally grounded, through their own justifications, then there is no argument to be made against the justification of the majority of the population in pursuing something so obviously abhorrent. However, we have to look no further than the history of the United States of America to find a similar comparison to the example given. Slavery was an institution that lasted from 1619 to 1865 and exposed the folly of majority factions in a “democratic republic” state. While most northern states had abolished the practice by 1804 the issue was deeply dividing in the founding of the nation, most people still pushed for the perpetuation of the institution even after the end of the importation of slaves in 1808(Article 1, section 9 of the constitution). Slavery, (at least based on the characteristics of race according to the 13th amendment ) wouldn’t come to an end in America until a bloody civil war, where a majority of the population had to forcefully impose their will on the other faction (which would have surely done the same if the mass was on their side) who had a vested and material interest in continuing the institution for their benefit. This example however proposes a unique disturbance in the democratic process, as the Southern democrats were clearly in the minority in this situation, disengaging from the democratic process that allowed them to exist as a party, the Southern states opted to secede from the union. And through their constitution, made the practice of slavery continue perpetually. So, although deemed illegal by the North, what is the position of sovereignty in a democratic state? 

Factions Continued

Democracy presents another interesting exploitation of its process. Being the prospect of other forms of governance intruding through the freedom allowed in a democratic state. For example, a faction interested in the total subversion not of the state itself, but the process by which the state runs, democracy and voting. While it would most obviously be against any nation-state’s law to do such a thing, how would those laws be fair in the face of majority support for said anti-democratic faction? An example would be the transition of Rome from its “republic” to an “empire” which had broad support throughout its populace. Due to the waning popularity of the senate, which Caesar capitalized on making himself dictator. Though no formal referendum was held on whether the Roman people wanted to be a republic, dictatorship, or eventual empire, we can safely assume that with the reaction of the Roman people. They not only did not mind this transition but preferred it. One could argue that it would be anti-democratic to not allow a majority to make a decision, such as ending democracy (the same can be said for allowing anti-democratic factions, as it would be anti-democratic itself to not allow such expression).

Factions Solutions 

Though these problems present themselves in a pessimistic tone, how the solutions may seemingly express themselves is no less despairing. The process of curbing the effects of factions is one of two options. The first is to outright remove the cause that brings about the creation of said factions. Or in other words, it would be to quite literally eliminate all possibility of factions, by removing the organization of peoples with similar interests, and would therefore be a betrayal of democracy itself. The second solution would be to limit the effects of face factions, this would look like limiting the amount of people that can vote and limiting the process by which a law or bill can be ratified to prevent emotionally driven “nonpermanent” resolutions. Contemporary America follows the second doctrine, in putting as many barriers from the common voter to actual legislative change. Perhaps it’s the only way our “democratic-republic” can and has been able to function for so long, at the obvious expense of a more “direct” mode of democracy. 

Conclusion 

Democracy, through some functions seemingly inherent, suffers great setbacks to achieving a truly egalitarian mode of governance. “Setbacks” will always be there in any system of governance according to its ideological axioms and the perspective in which you view these “setbacks”. With our analyzing of these problems how then are we to fix them? Are these problems already fixed? For democracy to work does some sort of subjugation need permanence? 

Therefore I ask, what is the most appropriate application of democracy, if any?