We are often told, because we live in a society with democratic processes, that democracy is a good thing. Actually, for the sake of accuracy, I need to go further. We are often told, either implicitly or explicitly, that democracy is the only moral form of government.
And sure, democracy can be great. The idea of any form of government wherein the will of the people is carried out through the means of voting does sound wonderful. It’s hard to be against.
Although there are some glaring problems. (I know we live in a constitutional representative republic, but it’s frequently referred to as a democracy. So just roll with me in talking about democracy because, even though it’s only one form of self-government, some of the problems I’m going to bring up with it apply to all forms of self-government.)
What democracy means in theory and what it has come to mean in practice are not the same thing. The most common definition of democracy is what I mentioned earlier, which is the will of the people being carried out through their voting. Now, there’s a major problem with democracy in theory—minority opinion has no say—but that’s not what I want to draw your attention to. Think about whether or not the will of the people is carried out by the government. We all know it usually isn’t. So even though we supposedly live in a democracy, we clearly don’t if the aforementioned definition is agreeable. But I don’t think the aforementioned definition is correct in practical terms. The correct definition places far more of an emphasis on the use of power.
Democracy in theory doesn’t understand how power actually operates in society. Democracy in practice does. And it’s this latter form of democracy that is meant by our political, cultural, and legacy media institutions when they name-drop the term. The blind spot of democracy in theory is that it counts on the people who are tasked with carrying out the will of the people actually carrying it out using the societal levers of power. But, as I previously mentioned, this rarely happens. People are much likelier to use power to serve their own self-interests. Starting to sound familiar? Sure, people vote in a democracy, but there’s a second part of the equation that determines whether those votes matter or not. This dynamic is what democracy, or any mode of self-government for that matter, actually means in practice.
So, then, the focus must be on the people in power. And, of course, this must be the case. Forms of self-government that focus solely on the will of the people are, frankly, delusional. And they’re delusional because they are not focusing on the element that is always present in government.
Regardless of the form of government, power is present. The form of government dictates how the political power is attained and distributed, but power is ever present. And, importantly, power is incredibly fragile. The culturally iconic character of Spider-Man gave us—actually, it’s from the parable of the Sword of Damocles and the Middle Ages idea of noblesse oblige, but everyone associates it with Spider-Man, so I digress—one of the most invaluable truths of the latter half of the 20th century. Indeed, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Therefore, when focusing on the people in power in a democracy, the people who put them there, the voters, must ensure those in power are justified in their possession of power. So what justifies a person holding power? Well, given what I’ve said thus far about the will of the people not being represented, you’re likely thinking this is the answer. But it’s actually not. What justifies a person’s possession of power is the pursuit of the common good. This can be the only answer. Yes, the fulfillment of the people’s will is a moral goal. Until it’s not.
The will of the people can be wrong. That’s a controversial statement to make in a self-governing society, but it shouldn’t be. It’s obviously true. An easy example of proof is 1930s Germany. Hitler was elected. It’s safe to say the German people got that one wrong. A less severe but more nationally relevant example for us Americans can be found in any of the terrible presidents we’ve elected over the years.
So since the will of the people can be wrong, it cannot be the most legitimate claim to being able to possess power; pursuing the common good with the power a leader possesses has to be. And the most surefire way a leader can pursue the common good is to relentlessly adhere to the pursuit of truth, both factually and, more importantly, morally.
A moral and virtuous leader is the one who is likeliest to bear the most fruit for the common good. And this is because he is the one who will possess the moral clarity to ensure that this is the case. If voters in a democracy, or any self-governing society, do not understand this, they are subject to societal degradation and very likely eventual ruin.