The Tyranny of Too Much Democracy

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

-              Winston Churchill

Democracy is defined as a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the people. [i] In other words, democracy essentially means that a relatively large number of people have their finger in the governmental pie, allowing a platform for collective decision making. There are different degrees of democracy, ranging from most to least democratic respectively – full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. 2024 is a significant year for global democracy, as more than 64 nations will be holding presidential or general elections. [ii] Thus, with its rising popularity, it is important to recognize the drawbacks of having ‘too much democracy’. The concept of too much democracy refers to the idea that excessive democratic freedoms, characterized by the unrestricted power of the majority, and the leaders elected by them, can have negative outcomes. In this essay we will explore the different possible negative outcomes of such democratic freedom to decide whether having too much democracy is a legitimate concern in today’s geopolitical landscape.

Populism and Demagoguery

The concept of demagoguery was first brought to light by Aristotle. He discusses three forms of government – Monarchy, Aristocracy and Polity, and then goes on to reference their supposedly ‘corrupt’ counterparts – Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy. [iii] Thus, in accordance with his views, democracy is considered an imperfect form of governance which inevitably leads to inequality and a widening gap between the affluent and the underprivileged. He cautions against the idea of “too much democracy”, predicting that a surplus of free will of the people when it comes to decision making, could result in their choices superseding the norms of law and order. This phenomenon is seen to be executed through political leaders known as demagogues, who pander to the irrational requests of the public in order to garner political support. Demagogues, like master illusionists, conjure support from the fog of public discontent. They thrive in environments where political dissatisfaction of the masses outweighs rational thinking. By appealing to these fears and frustrations of the public, such leaders garner significant power and support, thus gaining the ability to overshadow the rule of law.

The rule of law is the foundation of democratic processes, promoting four universal principles – accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice. [iv] The rule of law and populism, like oil and water, cannot live together. When populism dominates the rule of law there are several repercussions, such as suppression of human rights, increased polarization of the public and weakening of legal institutions. This is exemplified by the election of Rodrigo Duterte as President of the Philippines in 2016. [v] His campaign focused on eradicating crime through approaches such as extrajudicial killings, a clear violation of human rights. However, this appealed to a public frustrated by high crime rates and was thus something he capitalized on to garner majority support. Duterte's actions, though popular among many citizens, often bypassed legal procedures and destabilized the rule of law. His war on drugs has resulted in the deaths of more than 3000 people and has prompted severe international condemnation. Thus, this shows the drawbacks of having too much democracy when it leads to populism and demagoguery. [vi]

This theory is supported by Fareed Zakaria’s distinction between ‘illiberal democracies’ and ‘liberal democracies’. [vii] He defines a liberal democracy as “a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.” He posits that originally, the concept of a democracy only referred to liberal democracies, however, now we are beginning to witness a rise in illiberal democracies. The concepts of democracy and liberalism are mutually exclusive, as democracy is simply a way of electing a leader, and this leader thus does not necessarily have to reflect liberalist ideals if those ideals are not in line with the will of the majority.

Governments elected democratically may reflect illiberal principles such as – increased corruption, lack of freedom of speech and other repressive policies. This is because majority support for something does not automatically equate it to a morally correct or liberal policy. This is exemplified by the situation in Russia. In March 2020, the Russian constitution was amended to permit Vladmir Putin to stay in power till 2036, with nearly 78% of Russians supporting this alteration. [viii] However, Putin has several repressive policies in place in Russia, such as forcing NGO’s that participate in ‘political activities’ and receive funding from overseas to register as foreign agents, thus forcing them to comply with arduous laws and regulations. [ix] Despite this, and many other restrictive laws introduced by Putin in Russia, he still remains well-liked amongst his people – portraying him as a populist leader. This depicts the concept of democratically elected leaders propagating illiberal policies – however we cannot classify them as ‘undemocratic’, instead we can categorize this phenomenon as one of the negative effects of having too much democracy.

Majority rule vs Minority rights

            Another problem that arises if we have too much democracy, is the conflict between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. As established earlier, democracy is a system that thrives on popular rule, and thus, minority groups are often neglected in the face of the needs of the majority. While majority rule is the foundation of democracy, providing it with a clear and straightforward decision-making process, the majority may, under the guise of democracy, shape public policy in a way that solely benefits them, with no regard to the welfare and protection of various minority groups. For example, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees coming in from other countries. Consequently, it undermines the secular principles of the Indian constitution, and thus subjugates the Muslim minority population that resides within the country. This is what was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.[x] Thus, democracy can paradoxically become a tool of oppression, rather than of freedom.  

We can also look at the negative impacts on minority communities through the lens of choice. Freedom, in the context of methodological individualism, is seen as the absence of collective choice that imposes constraints on individual actions. 'Methodological individualism' refers to the explanatory and predictive strategies which give primacy to individual action in relation to social phenomena. [xi] In other words, it’s the idea that social outcomes are best understood by analyzing the individuals who make up the society, not the collective society as a whole. Democracy operates on majority rule, but methodological individualism reminds us of the fact that individuals who make up the minority may have their interests and rights overridden by the majority. Thus, democracy, a collective choice, may impede freedom which is an individual choice. Therefore, in a democratic system eventually the majority decides which choice the minority has to make.

The Bureaucratic System

            Too much democracy can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies that can make decision making a difficult and lengthy process. In a system where every voice is given equal influence and every decision requires extensive debate and consensus, the process can become sluggish and reaching a consensus could be incredibly difficult. Thus, too much democracy can slow down decision making, impacting a state’s ability to effectively address crisis situations in a timely manner. This is exemplified by the United States’ response to the COVID-19 crisis. The U.S. federal system divides power between the federal government and the states, and this fragmentation led to inconsistent responses across states, with some implementing strict measures early on and others delaying action. South Dakota welcomed 250,000 bikers, with no social distancing or mask mandates, into their state as part of their annual bike race on August 9th, 2020, while at the same time, Californians were living under a mandatory state mask restriction imposed by the governor.[xii] This contrast in response served to exacerbate the pandemic and resulted in a delayed response towards this crisis by the USA.  

Another critique of the democratic system lies in the fact that people will always act selfishly. In the same way that political leaders act in their own self-interest by trying to gain support rather than striving to protect the welfare of the people, voters also act in their own self-interest by trying to maximize their own utility, rather than voting for policies that benefit the common good. Further, an overload of democratic processes can also lead to voter fatigue or disinterest. Having to vote on various policies could promote apathy amongst the voters, causing them to make uninformed decisions due to lack of knowledge about the situation, a theory known as ‘rational ignorance’. It is essentially a phenomenon where voters intentionally choose to remain unaware of politics, due to the democratic system where everyone gets an equal vote, causing people to believe that their singular vote won’t significantly impact the actual outcome. In 2009 when President Barack Obama took office, his administration pursued a determined policy for healthcare. Yet, a September 2009 survey showed that only 37% of Americans believed they "understand" the health care plan.[xiii] Further, 46% of Americans believed that the important May 2009 “cap and trade” proposal was actually a “healthcare reform” or a “regulatory reform for Wall Street”, when it was in reality addressing environmental issues. [xiv]Thus, the system of democracy can lead to poor individual choices, and consequently, a poor method of collective choice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, though democracy seems to be becoming an increasingly popular form of governance in today’s contemporary political world, having too much democracy can have severe drawbacks for a state, on an individual, national as well as an international level. Populism and political demagogues can ‘democratically’ and systematically infringe upon human rights within their own state, as well as undermine the rule of law that supposedly defines democracy. Further, the very principle that democracy is built upon, that of majority rule, could lead to tyranny of the majority and thus be used as a tool for oppression. In addition to this, the very bureaucratic system of democracy itself is flawed: tedious decision-making processes, rational ignorance and selfishness of voters can all hamper the method of collective choice that democracy so precariously balances upon. Keeping all these flaws in mind, I would even go as far as to conclude this essay by saying that democracy is only a justifiable form of governance in two scenarios - firstly, if collective choice is deemed absolutely necessary to preserve a particular freedom, and secondly, if every other possible method of collective choice is somehow even more detrimental to freedom than democracy is. Thus, in such cases, the very foundation of democracy—equality and justice—is undermined by its excessive application which is why I believe that there can be too much democracy.

[i] Dahl, Robert A, Ian Shapiro, and David Froomkin. 2019. “Democracy | History, Development, Systems, Theory, & Challenges.” In Encyclopædia Britannica. britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy.

[ii] “2024: A Defining Year for Global Democracy with Elections in over 64 Countries.” n.d. NDTV.com. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/2024-a-defining-year-for-global-democracy-with-elections-in-over-64-countries-5012806.

[iii] “Tyranny, Democracy, and the Polity: Aristotle’s Politics.” 2017. Farnam Street. February 21, 2017. https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/.

[iv] World Justice Project. 2019. “What Is the Rule of Law?” World Justice Project. 2019. https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law.

[v] “Rodrigo Roa Duterte: A Jingoist, Misogynist, Penal Populist - ECPS.” 2020. September 17, 2020. https://www.populismstudies.org/rodrigo-roa-duterte-a-jingoist-misogynist-penal-populist/.

[vi] Nast, Condé. 2016. “When a Populist Demagogue Takes Power.” The New Yorker. November 14, 2016. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/21/when-a-populist-demagogue-takes-power.

[vii] Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 76 (6): 22–43.

[viii] “Putin Approval Rating Russia 2023.” n.d. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/#:~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%20an%20amendment.

[ix] Webteam, Web. 2013. “6 of President Vladimir Putin’s Most Oppressive Laws.” Amnesty International USA. September 5, 2013. https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/6-of-president-vladimir-putins-most-oppressive-laws/#:~:text=Restricting%20non%2Dgovernmental%20organizations%20(NGOs.

[x] “Alexis de Tocqueville on the Tyranny of the Majority.” n.d. NEH-Edsitement. https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority.

[xi] “Methodological Individualism - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” n.d. Www.sciencedirect.com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/methodological-individualism#:~:text=.

[xii] Altman, Drew. 2020. “Understanding the US Failure on Coronavirus—an Essay by Drew Altman.” BMJ, September, m3417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3417.

[xiii] Mason, George. 2013. “Ilya Somin Professor of Law.” https://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/Somin_Introduction.pdf.

[xiv] Mason, George. 2013. “Ilya Somin Professor of Law.” https://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/Somin_Introduction.pdf.