« The New Atlantis | Home | Vinod breaks from the pack on options »
June 12, 2003
We need less Democracy
Mark Pincus has an interesting idea he’s calling eParty. Mark and I chatted about it in late April and I grumpily challenged some of his assumptions (for some reason I was in a bad mood that day—sorry Mark). Specifically while I was supportive of the idea of empowering individuals and making the system more democratic, I questioned whether people feel as disenfranchised as Mark seems to think they do. Well I now believe that I was wrong—on both counts.
I think people are feeling underrepresented and less and less connected to the political process. However, I think the solution is less democracy, not more.
Now I know what you are thinking—that’s absurd on the face of it. Many readers may actually feel that there is no such thing as too much democracy—but I will wager that if you read this I can convince you that indeed such a thing does exist (though I may not be able to convince you that we in fact are at that point.)
The reason for my latest epiphany is that I just finished Fareed Zakaria’s impressive new book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad.” It truly is a must read for anyone focusing on these issues.
It's important to be clear about what I mean by "democracy." We often use the word to describe modern, liberal systems of governance in general but I am specifically referring to the democratic aspect of democracy, which is to say how much people are directly involved in the political system. More democracy means more popular democracy—more voting—while less democracy means more representational democracy.
Zakaria lays it out very well. What's most important is liberalism—and freedom—not just democracy. There are countless examples of illiberal democracies (look at Russia, Peru, Venezuela) and more liberal autocracies (consider Singapore). Democracy by itself, without liberal constitutionalism, a legal system, a middle class, economic freedom, and other components, is often not sustainable. In fact, Zakaria makes a persuasive case that the key issue is sequence. The goal is certainly to bring democracy to the world, but democracies tend to stick only when they are installed after many of these other systems are in place. In fact, Zakaria claims that only when a country is above a certain per capita GDP will democracy last. Poorer countries should instead focus on liberal constitutionalism—protecting individual rights—and developing legal and commercial systems. Otherwise, without constitutional protections and a healthy economy, democratic demagogues can too easily manipulate fragile systems—leading often to one person, one vote, one time. Remember: Hitler was elected.
When poor countries without liberal systems in place try to democratize before liberalizing they often fail—as with Ghana, Tanzania, and Kenya. There have been countless dictators that got their start by being elected. Heck, Saddam Hussein was elected by 99% of the vote! On the other hand, countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, and Chile, all functioning democracies today, were liberalized under autocratic regimes—with democracy following these reforms, not leading them.
Obviously this has implications for places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be wise to liberalize, commercialize, and THEN democratize.
But what about America? Well let’s look at what works and what doesn’t work. The most respected public institutions in the country are the Supreme Court, the Fed, and the military—no one is elected to any of these bodies. The least respected is usually Congress—an elected body, of course.
Should the courts be more democratic? Scott Peterson is guilty, right? We all know is so why don’t we just vote on sending him to jail—rather than leaving it up to an unelected legal system? This is a democratic but illiberal idea. The Bill of Rights, while liberal, is in a sense anti-democratic because it prohibits our elected representatives from doing certain things. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even if the people demand it, Congress can’t prohibit free speech. The Bill of Rights is in this sense a constraint on democracy—in favor of freedom and liberalism—while at the same time being a fundamental prerequisite of a successful democracy.
A pure democracy would mean no courts, no congressmen, no president, no constitution and majority rules on everything--there is clearly such a thing as too much democracy. The question is, are we at the point?
The more democratic an institution is, the more it is subject to the whims and short term passions of the populace. With some distance, leaders can plan for the long term. Alan Greenspan can afford to be unpopular in the short term if he delivers in the long term. Often short term pain is needed to accomplish long term results. When was the last time a congressman sacrificed pleasing his constituency in the short term for a higher purpose?
I think when people want "more democracy" this because they feel "special interests" and corporations have all the power—while the "people" do not. That may be true—but it is not necessarily the case that the problem is not enough democracy: it may in fact be the other way around.
Most people believe that the vested interests have been gaining power in the last few decades. Is it a coincidence that since the 1960s our system has become increasingly democratic and open? Congress, which used to conduct much of its business behind closed doors, is now out in the open—and often on TV. The parties which used to select candidates in smoke filled rooms are now simply fundraising vehicles. Ballot initiatives have grown in use—a cop out for many representatives and a sop to the "people." Campaign finance reform laws have restricted the ability for big players to focus their funds. The system is not less democratic in form, only in function. Those that believe we need more democracy to counteract the special interests will have to explain why more democracy over the past decades has produced just the opposite effect.
The truth is that we will always have concentrations of power. Clay Shirky reminded us of that recently. But with more representational democracy the power centers are known and explicit—and the democratic aristocrats tended to have a sense of societal obligation. But with excess democracy the power centers aren’t eliminated—they just move. And often they move to places that are harder to detect and harder to control. When a candidate for congress must raise a huge amount of money and can only raise it $1,000 at a time, he will spend less of his time leading and much of his time fundraising—and those experts that know how to fundraise will find themselves in new positions of power.
Will a working eParty focused on issues, with politicians snapping two whenever there is a wave of emotional popular sentiment around a particular topic, result in a better democracy? I fear not.
I believe a better approach would be to focus on people--political leaders. Support them, advise them, help get them elected, and hold them accountable next election, but don't micromanage them. Let them represent us by using principles, not polls.
Ultimately I believe that excess influence of vested interests is a problem--but my solution is not to engage in a special interests arms race, with special issue-by-issue interests, whether by corporations or grass roots organizations, continuing to play more and more direct roles in governance, but rather to limit the scope of government, thereby depriving it of the ability to pick winners and losers in the first place.
Should progressives want more democracy?
Is moving back to a more representational form of government bad for certain groups? I think it may be better for most constituencies. Let's take the case of progressives.
No one ever accused me of being a "progressive"—and after this post I don’t think anyone ever will. And this is too bad because I really do feel on many levels I have common cause with many principles of modern progressives: I want a healthier, wealthier (that is, especially, less poverty), better educated, cleaner world that is “sustainable.” I too am worried about the “have nots”—though I may part company with many progressives in that I’m not that worried about the “haves”—and am generally concerned with the over abundance of human suffering on this planet. I am skeptical of Hollywood and of those zealously imposing their personal morality on others. Only problem is, when it comes to how these objectives are actually met I seem to be from Mars while many progressives are from Venus (or from elsewhere in the galaxy, if Joe Firmage is to be believed.)
These thoughts occur to me because I spent some time over the weekend at a conference called “PlaNetwork—Networking a sustainable future” in San Francisco. It was sort of a hybrid between an emerging tech conference (focusing on new ideas on social networking) and a progressive strategy session. It was unlike any “tech” conference I’ve been to in that it had a moral purpose—part call to geeks, part call to arms. This produced an interesting mix of presentations—many with a strong social message and a dash of technology thrown in, others more focused on new technologies and how they might be applied to progressive causes.
It also produced an interesting mix of attendees—a whole range from those trying to make money to those who want eliminate money all together (how will they buy all those bumper stickers and buttons?). I was part of the former group.
As I roamed the halls and listened to the sessions, there seemed to be a uniform desire for more democracy. One presenter, with a life size poster of George W. Bush (perhaps it was an homage but I think it was for comical effect), made the uncontested claim that it is “not that there is a majority of people who oppose us, there is a democracy gap.” Brewster Kahle, citing a common complaint heard during the conference, lamented the recent FCC decision on media ownership rules saying “who elected them?” The sentiment seemed clear: we are the majority; our voices are just not being heard. The solution: more democracy.
One of the highlights of the conference from Joan Blades, from MoveOn.org (so named because they wanted to "move on" from the Clinton impreachment trial.) MoveOn.org is "democracy in action" and an inspiration to Mark Pincus. Their mission:
MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our international network of more than 2,000,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today.
MoveOn represents the sentiment well: representation isn't working well enough--because it is corrupted by vested interests--so we need more direct democracy and more participation from the people. Who can argue with an attempt to create a grass roots counterweight to special interests? But is MoveOn moving our political system in the right direction? What if EVERYONE was as active as MoveOn members? The success of the MoveOn model (and the verdict is out on just how successful it can be) may be a Pyrrhic victory.
I have to say that I find it a bit strange on the face of it when radicals from San Francisco think that the solution to their problems is more democracy—have these people traveled outside of the Bay Area recently? Many progressives comfort themselves with the “fact” that George W. didn’t win (really, he didn’t win. Honest, he didn’t. It was all fixed. There’s a whole book on it.) Well that’s fine. But really it was a tie. And who would win a Bush v. Gore vote today? This is false comfort.
There are three possibilities: progressives are underrepresented, overrepresented, or represented in just proportion. From what I could tell, this audience seem convinced that it is the former. They are in the majority, it’s just that their voices aren’t being heard. And if they are not in the majority, it’s only because corporations and right wing propaganda have fooled the rest. But is this a fatal conceit? Why have progressives alone been able to see the path of truth and light while the rest of us wallow in darkness, shrewdley manipulated by commercial interests? Perhaps the notion that others would join the progressive revolution if they only knew the TRUTH is another false comfort. It is more than an academic question: if progressives are in fact not underrepresented, then perhaps they are getting their strategy wrong. Perhaps more democracy—in part what this conference was all about—is the wrong direction.
Let’s look at some of the issues. Do progressives want more democracy when it comes to abortion? Hardly. In fact, the entire pro-choice movement is centered around PREVENTING the abortion issue from being democratically decided. It’s a rare pro-choicer who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow the states to decide democratically whether they will allow abortion or not.
How about the Patriot Act? Most people at this conference weren’t too thrilled by it. Would more democracy solve this problem? If we had voted on September 12th, 2001 on whether we should err on the side of security vs. civil liberties what kind of Patriot Act do you think we’d have now? More democracy would have resulted in a more severe act, but it is the constitution that has been the main constraint on the Patriot Act. This is the problem with too much democracy—it favors the daily passions of the populace, often at the cost of longer term interests.
Another speaker at PlaNetwork was outraged by the Republican attempt to reapportion congressional seats in Texas. I don’t like gerrymandering either, but do progressives really want more democracy in Texas? The governor, senators, and state legislatures are all dominated by Republicans—and with good reason: most of the state is Republican. The congressional delegation is disproportionately Democratic because they were the last ones to gerrymander. More democracy would mean fewer Democrats—I don’t think this is a desirable result for progressives.
Mark Pincus thinks we need more democracy when it comes to the issue of legalizing marijuana, but ballot initiatives to legalize pot haven’t faired well.
What about one of the most democratic things we have in the country—California’s ballot initiative system. How many progressives out there were happy with Prop 13 (limits on property taxes), Prop 187 (immigration) or Prop 209 (limits on affirmative action.)
If people could vote on taxes, they'd go down. If people could vote on social security, if would be privatized (in part). If they could vote (as they did in CA) on affirmative action, it would be abolished—the courts are the progressive’s best shot on this issue. How do you think people would vote if we had a national referendum on gay marriages?
And what about the mouse? Despite anger at the FCC of late, it's the FCC, an unelected body, that is imposing what restrictions there are on media ownership rights. The progressive complaint seems to be that the FCC is too suceptible to corrupting political pressures and the influence of vested interests. Would more or less democracy—that is would more distance or less distance from political forces—achive the progressive's goal?
Truth is that progressives are more than willing to use non-democratic vehicles to achieve their goals. I've not met a progressive yet who would abolish the EPA, FDA, or FCC. Heck, most of the government is appointed, not elected. So the solution from the progressive perspective is probably not more direct influence on the political process--the kind that can give special interests more direct leverage--but better representation. So, if you are progressive, be careful what you wish for—you just might get it.
Ohmigod. I completely agree with Chris Alden. Pigs swoop through the air. The sky falls. Finally, you have become a one-nation Tory, profoundly skeptical of ultra-democratic institutions, and respectful of constitutional and governmental constraints upon the whims of the electorate.
I knew you would come around eventually. Or is this a long satire, like Machiavelli's The Prince?
I thought this would be your reaction. However, let the pigs come back to earth. My point is really one about the mechanics of government, not the function. My argument is that many, from classical liberals like myself, to progressives, to American socialists, or whatever you call yourself, may find it desireable not to continue the latest trends towards popular democracy. We still have much to argue about when it comes to what government should actually be doing--and what they can actually do effectively. To take issue specifically with what you said above, I am in favor of constitutional restraints on GOVERNMENT, but less enthusiastic about government constraints on the electorate.
I am what Edmund Burke would have called a Whig. That is, I am what used to pass for a Tory before Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I believe in a government of laws, not men, framed for the common good; I believe in the restraint of license; I believe in meausured, sober, unenthusiastic progress; I believe that men and women should be left to their own devices, except in so far as they hurt others; and I believe that affluence, education, and laws must predate democratic institutions.
Like you, I am not that enthusiastic about government constraints on the electorate; and like you, I am profoundly skeptical of the sordid farce that passes for popular democracy. Like you, I want less democracy. But I probably want it for different reasons. You seem to want less democracy because it means less government; I want less democracy because the electorate is savage, sadistic, greedy, and jingoistic.
Still, a pig just flew by window.
No, I don't "want less democracy because it means less government." I want more constitutional and representational democracy because it means BETTER government.
well chris, glad you came around (a little). but i disagree with the way you have framed the question.
first, you assume that i believe that a broader democratic voice will be positive for my own agenda when i agree it would likely be the opposite. i want it despite that.
second, i am merely advancing the idea of better enabling groups to self-organize on the web, creating new powerbases that draw from larger numbers rather than richer smaller groups.
third, i am also completely in favor of representative democracy but dont believe we come close to it today. i want to open up the process by which the agenda is set and candidates chosen. as i said, the agenda is set today but money and wackos (or highly involved invdividuals who passionately care about a given issue, sometimes analogous with wackos.)
Mark, On your first point, I didn't mean to assume anything about what you believe, what your agenda is, or what you want so let me retract that if I did.
To your second, the idea of better enabling groups to self-organize on the web is a good one and I believe inevitable--so this is a worthy effort. But despite some of the positive aspects, I'm suggesting that a result will probably be that it will move us more in the direction of popular democracy (away from representative) and inevitably put the focus on issues rather than people (because people tend to get active around issues--such as MoveOn with impeachement and the Iraq war.)
To your third, Zakaria makes a persuasive case that opening up the process has been one of the main reasons that the system has become so influenced by money and wackos of late. It's counter-intuitive and I resisted the idea at first, but I've been persuaded by his book.
I'm interested in why you think we don't come close to representative democracy today. I have my ideas on this but am interested in what you think the problem is.
chris, i respect your willingness to publicly admit what many others can only think to themselves, a popular belief that 'the people' shouldnt govern. also, intrigued by the concept that further democratization could exacerbate the dollars and wacko problem.
however, while i am often offered opportunities to gain 'insider' status and over influence issues etc (because groups want my money), i am well represented today as an average citizen, meaning that i feel helpless to effect the local or national agenda without major effort and money.
while i agree that enabling every voter a voice on every issue could lead to leadership by pop fads, i also think you're taking it to an unlikely extreme. all i'm saying is that just like in the business world centralized power corrupts and kills innovation. the web has enabled a broader economy, also broader decision making within corporations. more voices can be heard. these are usually informed voices too. similarly, more intelligent voices can be heard on political issues. a more open process means that a greater portion of our population can weigh in.
my hope is that someday there can be 1000's of moveons (these should be today's issue based non-profits and parties). they should enable their own consituents to have a greater voice, greater representation AND they will find that people are much more willing to put their dollars behind groups that allow them more representation. this can be self fulfilling in that ultimately these groups will start to realize that the more they serve broad groups the more dollars and votes they can garner. this will also be true for the two parties and ultimately good for our representative democratic system.
Let me put it this way. Putting aside for a moment what eParty may or may not do, my global issue is this: the idea that the solution to moneyed interests having excessive influence in politics is to counteract it with popular influence perpetuates a faulty system. This suggests that influencing politicians on issues from money, whether it be from concentrated sources or dispersed one, is not a problem. But I believe this whole business of politicians being for sale, and selling political favors in the form of spending programs, tax breaks, regulatory fiats, etc., is an inherently corrupt one—and it doesn’t matter much who’s doing the corrupting. It has lead to a massively bloated, incomprehensively convoluted, and grossly inefficient government that sucks resources out of the populace and peddles them to special interests. Equal opportunity groveling, giving the power to the people to bribe officials on par with concentrated special interests, is accepting a bad system. Instead, let’s reduce the politicians’ ability to sell favors. Then you’d really take money out of politics.
There are several ways that this can be done. Imagine, for example, if our tax code was given into the hands of a non-partisan, appointed body, similar to the Fed, which would receive guidance from Congress on the design of the tax code, but would craft it themselves and would then submit it to Congress for an up/down vote. Taking away Congress’s ability to craft any kind of tax cut/credit/deduction for any special interest would greatly reduce the influence vested interests would have on Congress.
Imagine if Washington didn’t play such a big, concentrated role on how our financial, health care, education, retirement, communications, transportations systems and the like we operated and regulated—the special interests wouldn’t be able to buy, with one big check, sweeping influence.
Finally, to be clear, the people shouldn’t govern—but they should certainly select the ones who do. Unfortunately THIS is what is really broken. How many incumbents lose their job? The biggest scandal in American politics is that the system is rigged for the incumbents—and Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty in this with their gerrymandering. Campaign finance reform has made this worse because it diminished the role of the party who used to be able to mount competition and forces candidates to troll for funds a $1,000 or so at a time. This means they are always fundraising and it greatly favors incumbents who have name recognition and can peddle favors. It also rewards demagoguery over leadership—since good leaders must often make unpopular decisions.
The best thing for democracy would be to make elections more competitive. If eParty were to be candidate based, rather than issue based, if it got out the vote, and if it encouraged people to support people of character, rather than characters, I’d be all for it.
Isn't is kind of a false premise to say that unelected institutions like the Fed and the Supreme court are more popular than Congress? Let's look at the Fed - the decisions it makes are HIGHLY controversial among those whose bottom line can be changed by Fed decisions (ex: money managers). The "man on the street" just doesn't tend to really care about a couple of basis points swing in the money market.
Also, let's look at the Supreme Court - social conservatives have been going crazy since the court outlawed anti-sodomy laws. Progressives love to hate Scalia/Thomas. The next Supreme Court appointment will be a HUGE event, and lots of lobbying will take place around the confirmation process. Seems pretty controversial to me.
To the point: how can you argue we have too much democracy? We have probably the oldest, creakiest democratic institutions in the 1st world! Chris - you said the presidential election was a tie. Well - not true! Gore got 500,000 more votes but Bush won...anyone care to defend the electoral college? Also, the Senate is highly undemocratic, i.e. California has the same number of Senators as Rhode Island.
Wouldn't it be better to move to a parliamentary system? This would let minority parties such as the Greens and Libertarians play a meaningful role in the system.
If I understand Chris right, the aim seems to be to de-politicize issues such as taxation and make the "right" decision. My ultimate point is that taxation, affirmative action, legal sodomy, etc. etc. are POLITICAL issues, and while yes we need a baseline of liberal rights & principles enforced by an independent judiciary, in many ways its impossible to separate such issues from self-interested political lobbying. Interest groups can always "work the system" by getting true believers in their cause appointed.
For instance, lets say the Fed or another similar body gets to set tax policy: isn't it a political decision who gets to sit on the "tax policy" board? If Grover Norquist gets on the board you'll get a much different outcome than if Paul Krugman does. There is no "correct" level of taxation, its an inherently political question.
Your first point makes mine: the Supreme Court can make controversial and difficult decisions based on the principles of our nation, reasoned arguments, and the constitution without fear of immediate reprisal based on short term whims and yet still remain one of the most respected institutions in the land--which, according to poll after poll, is a status the Supreme Court still enjoys, ranking well above the Congress.
The presidential race was a tie for all practical purposes and within the margin of error.
I think you miss my core point. I don't disagree that many of these issues are political issues and should be. In fact, I would err on having more issues be determined by legislatures than by courts, but the question is how that political process works. I believe politicians should govern based on principles, not polls, because the popular short term course is not always the wisest. Sometimes short term unpopular decisions must be made for the sake of reasonable planning. On the tax issue, the politicians would still have the right to vote a proposal up or down and would, and should, shape the nature of our taxation and our level of taxation. But this insane, and I mean insane, tax code which is 10,000s of pages long is simply a bribery mechanism--a way politicians pay favors to special interests. This isn't serving the interests of democracy--fixing that system would.
It seems to come down to you wanting to trade freedom for "correct decisions" - I agree there are situations where popular sentiments are wrong. Thats why the Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body that has some degree of independence. But I would have to come down on the side of accepting some level of ineffiency in order to maintain democratic control over the major policy decisions, including influencing the structure of things like the tax code.
I'd have to re-assert that a "tax policy board" would immediately become politicized, and the set of appointments to the board would be the subject of intense lobbying, and in effect the people placed on the board would become a proxy for the policies.
You (and Zakaria) seem fairly unhappy with democracy...its messy stuff!
Also, what are some examples of specific special interests you feel are getting bribed via the tax code? Are you a flat tax proponent? How about the idea of getting rid of income taxes and moving to a consumption tax - that seems to be a popular idea in the D.C. think tanks lately. It destroys any notion of progessive taxation but obviously many people don't like that anyway.
I'm sorry, but I thnk you are missing the point entirely. This is certainly not a choice between "freedom" and "correct decisions" and it is not the case that I am "unhappy" with democracy. Freedom does not equate to popular democracy. In fact, a society with pure direct democracy would be a decidedly UNfree one. Imagine if any of our liberties could be taken away if only 51% of the population decided it should be so. It is things like the constitution and the courts that protect liberty.
I am also not saying that people shouldn't have "democratic control" over our government. Hardly. The question is how the people exert control over the politicans.
In the case of the tax board, I'll say again: their decisions would be VOTED on by the congress, but a board would limit the ability to horse trade and pork barrel.
Yes, I am in favor of a flat tax.
First point: its a basic feature of a well-designed liberal democracy that individuals have rights that can't be taken away by the majority. That doesn't mean that some sort of majority rule shouldn't be used to decide issues that don't infringe on individuals' rights.
So if the issue is how the people exert control - can't you concede that you are calling for less democracy when you say that an unelected board should set tax policy, and not elected representatives? Sure reps would vote up or down - but if they kept voting down until they saw something they liked, wouldn't we be back to horse-trading? Its not like the tax policy board's people wouldn't be talking to congress/president to figure out what everyone wanted to see. Would the president have the ability to appoint/fire the head of the tax policy board? You wouldn't be too happy if a President Howard Dean went and put people on the board that have agendas you don't like. And remember, bureaucracies that report to congress often get overruled (witness how the FCC is getting overriden by congress) - its the ones that are OUTSIDE the legislative process i.e. supreme court and Fed, that really get to limit what congress is up to.
These caveats aside, how is what you are calling for not decreasing democracy by moving tax decisions over to an unelected bureaucracy??? It seems that intellectual honesty would call for you to concede that you are in fact unhappy with the democratic process governing the details of tax policy (and perhaps other areas of government) and want to take it out of elected representatives' hands for various reasons! I'm not saying this isn't necessarily the way to go but let's agree on the direction this is moving in.
[On the flat-tax issue, do you think that a CEO's ten-millionth dollar in salary should really be taxed at the same rate as a single mother's twenty-five-thousandth dollar in salary? It seems like some kind of higher tax rate for higher-earners is only fair.]
The only way things like supreme court or Fed work really well is by being given guidelines (bill of rights, low inflation / stable economy) to adhere to. So, for a tax policy board we'd need an "economic bill of rights" that would be set up at the front to guide the board, and there are obviously are people out there with WILDLY different priorities on tax policy such as the Krugman vs. Norquist example I gave. Writing the economic bill of rights would be a highly political process. Also, IMHO the board would need to have powers independent of congress & the president in order be able to set policies independently of the established set of special interests.
What I'm trying to say is that its almost impossible to separate out the lobbying & interest group influence on government policies such as taxes without creating bodies that have real powers that aren't checked by congress, and I am not sure that such regulatory bodies would be particularly immune to lobbying.