Don’t believe them! 3 reasons why you can have too much democracy
Its sounds nice in theory, but giving a large population the ability to vote on everything is a disaster. And it is one that populists are eager for us all to adopt.
Here’s why.
1. It’s far too complicated
Populist politicians and a whole army of (opaquely-funded) think-tanks and lobby groups will argue that I am insulting your intelligence by saying this. But the truth is that you and I are not smart enough to understand the complexities of a lot of the issues we might be voting on. The UK Brexit vote is a great example of that.
Whatever side of the fence you sat in the Brexit vote, nobody really understood what the impact of the vote would be. Not least the hapless Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, who didn’t even realise how important the UK’s major port of Dover was to trade. From peace in Northern Ireland to the terms of membership of the world’s largest market, from health insurance for holiday-makers to regulations governing mobile phone prices. The list is long and complex.
Many didn’t care for the detail and simply voted on emotional responses. All of these different elements were boiled down to a simplel Yes or No vote. That is hardly the basis of sound decision-making.
2. It's too much like hard work
Understanding the economic impact of a policy like, for example, the US Affordable Care Act, is not easy. It takes years of study, building upon years of research from hundreds of sources. The same is true of policies governing regulation of pharmaceuticals, or understanding the impact of policies on the environment. No one person can hold all this stuff in their head with a sufficient degree of expertise to make anything like an intelligent or informed decision about whether one policy is better than another.
That’s why every mature democracy works through representatives. We delegate the work of government to accountable politicians, who in turn steer an army of public servants and advisors to deliver a world that is (hopefully) better than the one we have now. And we expect them to carry the can when things are mismanaged.
3. You can’t trust a word of it
In theory direct democracy should work. If we had the time to scrutinise what we were voting, and the intelligence to understand it all, then all we would need is the accurate information on which to base that decision. But this is the third fatal flaw in direct democracy: there is no ultimate source of the truth.
From the Tea Party loonies in the US Republican Party to just about every other populist movement around the world, a common refrain is that their voices are being silenced. At the same time they push out a continuous double-whammy of their own “alternative facts” and attempts to undermine real experts.
Some of those claiming to advocate free speech present the argument as a “marketplace of ideas”, where the most popular ideas will rise triumphant. But this doesn’t mean that the truth will dominate. In the UK, millions have been spent behind the scenes funding all kinds of shadowy organisations promoting right-wing agendas from the centre-right to the far right.
In practice, the marketplace of ideas hands control over to those with big mouths and big money.
Democracy does work AND it can be more accountable
I don’t want you to think that I don’t belive in democracy at all. And there are some genuinely interesting ways in which democracies can become more accountable. Whether it is the strengthening of the independence of the media, resticting campaign financing and publishing of disinformation via social media, improved transparency, restricting gerrymandering, punishing politicians who don’t tell the truth, and having more diverse voices in government.
There are also some (IMO exciting) things to try in terms of bringing politics to teh people: citizen assemblies for some complex and subjective questions, Islamic community courts, and subsidiarity — really pushing power away from centrist governments to more local levels.
Your vote is precious: use it carefully.