Fixing Democracy

Democracy is hailed as one of the great advancements of modern civilization. When asked to describe the general political structure of our country, most citizens proudly reply that it is a democracy. Strangely, though, democracy is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. This is because our political structure is more precisely described as a Constitutional Republic. How did we arrive at this strange dichotomy, and is this dichotomy a problem?

First, some very brief history. This country is structured as a Constitutional Republic. As such, there is a defined and limited role for government, with federal power dispersed among three branches and with states empowered with great latitude to exercise their individual political wills. This is the theory, at least. For some of our history, this theory was close to reality, notwithstanding some pushing and shoving between the federal branches, and between the states and the federal government.

Of course, governments are not robotic organizations. They require legislators, executives, and judges. And these professionals require a method for appointment into office. This is where the concept of democracy has edged its way into our political framework. It is not so much the heart of our political philosophy, but rather the method by which we have gradually come to execute it. In the beginning, a very limited subset of our population participated in the selection of leaders. Today, there is widespread involvement by the general population. Unfortunately, time and ignorance have served to blur the distinction between philosophy and method, to the point where now democracy, per se, is seen as the moral and intellectual foundation of our government.

Is this a problem? This author proposes that it is one of the most grievous problems facing our nation. Democracy is simply a method for choosing, such as between candidates for office or proposals on a ballot. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it, and it does not inherently protect anything or provide any wisdom or guidance. The democratic choices made can be good, bad, or even abhorrent. Tyrants can be voted into office. Incompetent legislators who coincidentally have a lot of money or strong family connections can be voted into office. Ballot proposals that are abhorrent and that violate basic rights can be enacted. Mob rule can overwhelm the rightful interests of a minority group. The most villainous policies can be empowered by a simple majority. It is worth noting at this point that the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of mid-20^th Century Germany was elected into office.

The mere power to vote does not provide sufficient moral and structural integrity for a nation. As citizens, we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, according to our Founding Fathers. These rights are protected in our Constitution, which likewise limits the power of our government in favor of these inalienable rights. These rights cannot, and should not, be voted away. And yet, we have become so enamored with democracy, so enamored with building enough of a mob to change the direction of the country to suit our blind, short-term, single-issue collective needs, that the concept of individual rights protected by a Constitution is slowly ebbing into obscurity. The result is a continually growing government presence, a larger and larger share of wealth flowing to the government, and quiet erosion of individual privacy and security.

Sadly, this was predicted by the Founding Fathers, and was one of the reasons why the initial methods for choosing leaders were not as democratic as they are today. Quite simply, the belief was that a large enough mob will always form in a democracy to confiscate the wealth of the minority and to destroy the protections of individual rights. The great fear of our founders was that power would be siphoned into a central government from individuals and states, like a giant sucking vortex. History has demonstrated that their fears were well founded. The federal government today is a leviathan that dwarfs any nightmare the Founders may have lost sleep over. State and local governments have likewise exploded in scope.

The problem is that in a widespread democracy, it is simply too tempting and too easy for candidates for political office to bargain away the wealth and rights of individuals and minority interests for the favor and votes of the majority. You cannot win office without the most votes, and the most efficient method to obtain the most votes is to offer programs and transfer payments that benefit the largest number of voters. This creates an unavoidable bias toward bigger government and eroded individual rights. This has been the history in our country, and will only get worse as more time passes. Eventually, producers will cease to produce, wealth will disappear, rights will be lost, and we will all wallow in the fetid abscesses of our democratic excess.

If too much democracy is the problem, what is the fix? It is important to assess this question in the context of the balance of powers that the Founders envisioned. They created a legislature to make laws and fund the government, an executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs and to carry out the laws of the legislature, and a judiciary to ensure that the laws and the manner in which they are executed are within the limits defined by the Constitution. Checks and balances are established between these branches, so that one does not become dominant over the other.

This is elegant in theory, but the method by which the players in each of these branches are chosen can dramatically skew the outcome. Today, both the legislature and the executive branches are chosen democratically, by simple majority of the associated voting populations. The judiciary is appointed by the executive branch, and approved by the legislature. In practice, therefore, there really is no effective balance of power. All of these appointments are directly or indirectly made by simple majorities of all voters. It is pure democracy, and subject to the biases described above that will lead to our eventual collapse into mob rule. The checks and balances are an illusion. We will inevitably end up with bigger and bigger government. Our constitutional protections will slowly be voted away.

In order to fix it, balance must be restored between the power of the mob and the power of certain individual citizens whose wealth and rights are targeted by the mob. A very simple tactic for accomplishing this is to create separate and distinct methods for choosing each of the three branches of the government. For example, let us argue that is proper for the entire population to choose our chief executive. The executive is charged with representing our country in foreign affairs, and with making sure that laws are properly executed. It seems right and proper for all citizens to be invested with the power to choose this person. Let us further argue that the judiciary should not be chosen by popular vote at all. The judiciary is charged with ensuring that our Constitution is honored, so therefore judges should not be pressured or tempted by the demands of the mob. Their job is not to represent the current popular opinion, but to ensure the protection of our inalienable rights. Lastly, let us argue that the legislature should be chosen by a subset of the voting population. This subset should be the one most impacted by the activity of the legislature, which to a very large extent is involved with the raising of funds and the expenditure and allocation of these funds. It is through this fiduciary power of the legislature that the explosive growth of the government is fueled.

The subset of the voters that should choose the legislators is the property owners. This is the group that the mob would dearly love to target, and the group that the politicians would most quickly bargain away to the mob, if they could. It is the exploitation of this group by the democratic process that is the Achilles heel of democracy. In order to solve the problem of democracy, it is necessary to restore the status of property owners to their rightful place in the balance of our political powers. Since they are the ones that primarily fund the government, let them be the ones who select the representatives that determine the proper levels of taxation and the proper allocation of funds.

So, let the mob choose the president. Let the property owners choose the legislature. Let the president nominate judges, and let the legislature confirm (or reject) them. This will restore true balance between the mob, the property owners, and the Constitution that is designed to protect them all. This will make the balance of powers envisioned by the Founders a real force, rather than an illusory sham. Some may call this approach undemocratic, and by implication, un-American. This author challenges them to read the Constitution, which does not mention democracy, and to consider the logical extension of its premises. That’s what true Americans would do.