Democracy is in danger! (Another example.)Or, at least, the media has become fond of saying as of late. What is the speaker trying to convey? More importantly, what is democracy?
The intention behind the phrase depends on who is speaking. Coming from the political left, it means that republicans need to be stopped from getting democratically elected or they will somehow stop democracy. This raises many questions. If, by preventing the destruction of democracy you must stop democracy, has it not already been destroyed? What if the voters elect a candidate who will destroy democracy? In short, when does the results a democracy create stop being democratic? The answer, it would seem, depends on whether the speaker is getting what they want, or not. So is democracy in danger or is it safe?
To solve this riddle, we must first understand what democracy is. Democracy is political system where the citizens vote on every issue where the proposal receiving the most votes wins. America doesn’t have a democracy, it has a republic. A republic has democratically elected representatives who vote on issues which are also determined by majorities. The difference is minimal and most colloquially refer to republics as democracies.
Now, if a democracy decides to end itself, then that is its last democratic act. Refusing to allow democracy to end itself is thus denying democracy. Why then, are pundits attempting to end democracy by saying democracy is in danger?
The incentive to claim democracy is in danger is strongest for those who are losing. If alarmism over democracy brings forth strong feelings in voters, all the better for pillorying the opposition and thus improving the odds of being elected. It turns out, then, democracy is not in danger from whatever the speaker claims it is. The threat to democracy is actually posed by those who are unwilling to submit to the will of the majority and instead believe their judgment should supersede the majority’s.
It is now clear that crying wolf about democracy’s imminent danger is tantamount to throwing a temper tantrum when one does not get what they want. Whether or not democracy is actually in danger by those accused matters little. For, by claiming it is, the speaker is, in essence, acting authoritarian by intentionally subverting the will of the majority and attempting to force the majority to vote as they see fit. Even if democracy were in danger because the majority’s will was its destruction, then to deny that destruction becomes authoritarian. James Burnham sums up the point well, “In the name of their [democratic totalitarians] democracy, they preach the attitudes of Bonapartism, and they advocate the suppression of the specific institutions and the specific rights and freedoms that still protect the individual from the advance of the unbridled state.” [Italics added]