By Deepa Majumdar
That democracy is the best form of government is the common wisdom of our times. But is it? To answer this question, we must first understand the heart and essence of democracy. Each political system has its essences, in addition to structure. While a degree of structure is necessary to prevent chaos, a system loses its heart and soul when structure becomes its essence. The more worldly a system, the more it will focus on structure at the expense of essence.
Modern democracy has varying structures – from the unicameral systems of the Scandinavian nations, Ukraine, etc., to the bicameral systems of India, USA, UK, etc. But besides their individual essences, all democracies share a universal essence, which defines democracy as such. What is this quintessence? It is a variant of friendship. Yes, democracy is, in quintessence, a variant and offshoot of friendship. If mutual respect and trust dispel power to forge friendship between people – then they also dispel power to forge bridges of friendship as the quintessence of democracy – at least in theory. In practice, however, democracy can range from cultish narcissism, which obscures friendship – to reasonable forms of altruism that radiate the freedom of friendship.
American democracy is based on a cynical model of human nature that uses a system of checks and balances to thwart dictatorship (its nemesis). To model democracy with the sole aim of preventing dictatorship, is itself a problem. For, there are many shades in between these two extremes. Besides, democracy itself can be dictatorial. In fact, dictatorship is most effective when window dressed as a democracy.
To this we may add other defects of the American system – such as inordinate attention on structure and rules, at the expense of heart and soul (or essence). More egregious, however, is its hypocritical nature, which is why one author describes it as a “democrisy” (combination of democracy and hypocrisy). After all, what can be more hypocritical than spreading democracy internationally, from the barrel of a gun (the most undemocratic means possible) – through war or regime change? A domestic democracy that is a global policeman has to be hypocritical. In fact, even on the domestic front, a democracy that favors tax breaks for the rich, while refusing to raise the minimum wage from its starvation level of $7.50 an hour, is hypocritical. Moreover, a democracy that relies so much on campaign funds, and voter influence – through billionaire endorsements, celebrity approval, etc. – dilutes itself to a pale shadow of friendship. Decimating voter volition – a bulwark of true democracy – an endorsed and influenced system, becomes, at best, a caricature of the real thing. Finally, how can democracy be true, if its budget is undemocratic? Is it any longer a democracy, if its elected president uses hard-earned tax money to wage war – without consulting taxpayers? Americans have little to no say in how their government spends their tax contributions. American presidents never thank taxpayers on April 15th (the tax deadline) each year. At the macro-level, therefore, America is more a plutocracy than a democracy.
But at its micro-level, America is a thriving democracy that expresses its quintessence of friendship very effectively – through a basic respect for all persons, irrespective of station or stature. Swami Vivekananda who witnessed this impressive egalitarianism – lamented the stark contrast with India, where the “don’t touchism” of caste destroyed and still destroys society through rigid, impermeable hierarchies. Although a bastion of global capitalism, America, therefore, de-classes Indians. Instead of a servant culture or the caste system, here they witness a billionaire and janitor riding the same bus. But this egalitarianism, at the level of basic humanity, does not translate into true brotherhood, or equal rights in crucial areas, like healthcare and education. Instead, equality applies where it does not belong – by giving every voter equal voting power.
The main problem with structured democracy is that it ignores that which should be the very fount of its quintessence – namely the character of its people. Democracy presupposes individuality. But what if this individuality is worldly and selfish, as is inevitable during darker periods of history? What if its people lack critical thinking – which is viveka, or the power of discernment in Indian religions? Do all voters deserve equal power of voting? Should all votes be weighted equally? Are people literally equal in their powers of judgment, moral acuity, and truthfulness? Of course not.
The world is yet to see a true democracy – a system that shines with its quintessence, using structure as a mere vessel to hold this inner light of friendship that expresses itself at all levels – from the budget to healthcare. Such a democracy fosters that brotherhood which ties citizens into a whole, without resorting to the twin banes of identity politics and blind nationalism. What the world has witnessed thus far, is a worldly, suspicious democracy that obscures its quintessence of friendship, beneath the debris of structure, complex rules, and a cynical system of checks and balances that presupposes an inherent and irredeemable will-to-power in human nature. At best, this American model prevents a worldly democracy from being more dangerous to itself and the world. It does not translate to the altruism that overcomes the alienation inherent in a culture of rights without responsibilities.
What then is the chief lesson to be learned from the 2024 American election, which brought about Donald Trump’s triumphant return – with a four-year litigious exile in between? The “basket of deplorables” who voted for Mr. Trump, basically used the democratic process to destroy democracy, by voting into power a known despot – a twice-impeached, convicted felon, and insurrectionist, who has openly threatened vengeance on enemies – a delusional megalomaniac who has spread lies about Haitians eating their neighbor’s pets. A loathsome misogynist, Mr. Trump has openly bragged about sexually demeaning women. Nevertheless, his voters adore him. Why? Because he represents all that they long for – wealth, women, power. What do his voters see in him? They see what they themselves would like to be – utterly “unwoke” – immoral, politically incorrect, wealthy, openly misogynous, racist – and possessing unlimited power granted by a system meant to check power. Given his fascist talents and cultish character, Mr. Trump used his perpetual snarl, but also honeyed words, to stoke his voters’ fears for personal gain. Pitting Americans against each other, he spurred hatred against the perpetual other – whether the poor, the liberal, women – or the LGBTQ community, immigrants, etc. For, Donald Trump, all by himself, stands as the historical colossus that opposes all liberal leftwing progressive ideals.
This election was extraordinary – not just because we had a sitting vice-president and former prosecutor (a multi-racial “woman of color”) – pitted against a convicted felon (“white male”) who represents the worst nightmare of the progressive activist – but because it revealed the main risk of the structured democracy – vulgar voters. This election spoke more about the voters who voted for Mr. Trump, than about him. Ignoring his palpable character flaws, several sexual misconduct allegations, and four criminal cases (with 88 criminal offenses) – they prioritized the economy and monetary issues above moral principles, to crown a despot – using the democratic process to destroy democracy. So far, the American democracy has been shaken – not destroyed. But Mr. Trump can misuse the powers (all of them legitimate) granted to him by this election to forge a democratic dictatorship. Although imperfect, even the pallid-but-functioning structured democracy should be cherished, if the alternative is naked despotism. The ground is already trembling with the aftershocks of this election. Some European leaders have already kowtowed with craven deference to Mr. Trump. Today, a young man told me his friends felt suicidal. Back in 2016, before Mr. Trump’s first term, American youth spoke of escaping to Canada – not suicide.
Again, what are the chief lessons to be learned from this memorable election? Besides the death of all genuinely progressive political causes, what else does it portend? The lessons all point to the flaws inherent in structured democracy. First and foremost, this election proves that not all voters deserve equal power of voting. It proves that majoritarianism comes with inherent risks of populism, mob rule, and crass subjectivity. It proves that voters can be unworthy of voting, when they are emotional, self-projecting, irrational, and delusional. This election proves that a populace gets the ruler it deserves. It proves, as well, the inadequacy of letting voters select their ruler. Prima facie this feature of modern democracy – that voters get to choose their leader – sounds like a humbling check to the will-to-power. But is it adequate? I would say it expresses a minimal level of democracy that produces despotic voters who are as power-hungry and egotistic as despotic rulers. Allowed to express their franchise only during elections, voters become despotic. Instead, the worthier voters should, by law, be consulted on all major decisions – through referenda, polls, and surveys.
Above all, the main lesson to be drawn from the 2024 American election is the fact that the structured democracy derives its moral quality more from that of its voters, than its candidates. The post-election MAGA violence against women, liberals, and others proves that voters can be as despotic, if not worse, than the despots they vote into power. If free-will comes with the risk of evil, then structured democracy comes with the risk of despotism. It, therefore, cannot be the best polity. Far better is a moral republic, which prioritizes voters with proven ethical records, using them more as authoritative leaders than representatives at the mercy of their electoral base.