Democracy is a Process – Not a System

    We hear much talk today in America about “our Democracy” or our “system of Democracy”. Without delving into the finer distinctions of how we are actually not a Democracy but rather are a Constitutionally-limited Republic, I will endeavor to expose the dangers in viewing Democracy as a System or as an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

    First let us define our terms for the purposes of this article:

System
    A set of interacting processes that comprise a single coherent whole.

Democracy
    A process by which the majority rules in all decisions. The doctrine of majority-rule.
    The point I intend to make with the above definitions is that I wish to differentiate between the concept of a “System” and the concept of a “Process” (which is a component of a system).

Democracy as a system

    According to many, Democracy is a political system. It is a system where the people (or rather, the majority of the people) rule in all matters. This leads many to the conclusion that anything the majority decides must be the law of the land. After all, if Democracy is our system, and if that system states that “the People” (the majority) are the ultimate authority, then anything the majority of the people want must become law.
    A problematic side-effect of this view is that lynch mobs are then examples of properly functioning democratic bodies as no limits are placed on the scope of the decisions being made. Thus we see there is a fatal flaw in the concept that Democracy is, in and of itself, a complete system. Using Democracy as the sole component of a governmental system is like dropping a high-performance engine into a car, but leaving out the brakes and steering – it is woefully incomplete and dangerous!

Democracy as a process

    To many, the distinction between a process and a system will sound like quibbling and hair-splitting. But the importance of this distinction will soon become clear to the reader. Democracy is a process of making decisions. It answers the question, “who shall decide?” However, it does not answer the question, “what types of decisions shall be made?” or “what shall be the scope of the decisions made?” This is the critical missing element that keeps it from being a complete system.

    Most Americans would agree that freedom is our ultimate goal, our end. But many confuse the concept of Democracy as the embodiment of this end. This is not the case. Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is a result of limited government power. Democracy is one of many means by which government power is limited. But by itself it can also be a means by which government power is expanded. In fact, as the example of a lynch mob illustrates, Democracy, when practiced alone without any other moderating processes, can easily lead to the destruction of the rights of the individual. So then Democracy must not be our end, but rather must be one means to our end, that end being freedom.

The utility of the Democratic process

    You’ve doubtless heard much talk about things called “checks and balances” as it pertains to systems of government. Democracy is one such “check and balance”. Democracy is a means by which government can be kept accountable to the people it governs. This is conducive to freedom for obvious reasons. But as we have seen, Democracy by itself cannot achieve our ultimate end. And if we rely on it alone, we will be sorely disappointed.
    What’s more, the Democratic process should not be used as a means for the majority to rule over the minority by using the State as its proxy. If this is done, not only is Democracy not serving its rightful purpose of keeping government in check, but it has become a mechanism for the very sort of oppression it was created to prevent!

What shall be decided?

    To complete our system, we still must answer the question, “what types of decisions shall be made?” In the American system of government, this question is answered by our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The point here is that the government, and by extension, the people acting through the government through the Democratic process, are limited in the scope of what they may impose by force of law on their fellow citizens. That scope must be limited to the securing of individual rights. If the government or the “people” are granted power to use the force of law beyond this boundary, or worse, if they are given carte blanche to rule arbitrarily, then the very rights we sought to protect will now be endangered by the whim of the majority. We certainly don’t want our most fundamental rights, such as rights to speech or life, to be subject to the mercies of the ruling majority! Such rights must be held inviolate regardless of popular opinion and should not be subject to a vote.

The rule of Law or the rule of Men?

    Recently a 17 year old girl who was running for mayor in Minnesota (where state law requires her to be 21 to be eligible for office) was asked what she would do if she won the popular vote but would not be certified due to her age. Her response? She would take it to court because, “I doubt the judge would be able to say no to the popular vote. The people’s right to choose prevails over (state law).” In other words, she believes the people are above the law. This is why one of the primary questions that needs to be asked today is, do we wish to have the Rule of Law, or the Rule of Men? Do not forget that it was the Dark Ages when we saw the Rule of Men in the form of kings and despots. Whether we have one king, or a million kings makes little difference. Men are volatile and subject to whim.
    One of the key turning points in the history of human civilization, insofar as government is concerned, was the advent of written law. This demarcated a point where men were no longer subject to the whims of their masters. They could now read the laws that were (literally) set in stone to which their masters would have to adhere. Punishments could no longer be arbitrary since the precise letter of the law was publicly known and could be pointed to.

    An age of brute Democracy would signify a return to the age of the Rule of Men; an age where we have little use for actual written law but instead relegate everything to referenda and public opinion; an age where instead of suffering the tyranny of a single king, the minority suffers under the boot of a multitude of kings with whims that change with the seasons.

    Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, “…Law alone saves a society from being...ruled by mere brute power, however disguised.” Now couldn’t it be argued that brute Democracy is just a means by which law is made, and that we therefore are still under the Rule of Law? At first this argument sounds sensible, but the actual fact of the matter is that under such a Democratic “system”, law itself becomes nothing but a formality by which the whim of the moment is imposed on the people by force. Since law in no way restrains the actions of the majority so long as something is sufficiently popular, there is little actual need or use for law. Law should not be easily changed. One of the key features of the American Constitution, for example, is the fact that it is difficult to change. As a result, it resists transient whims and is normally only changed when there is very strong reason to do so.

The proper role of Democracy

    Democratic processes are a powerful tool to keep the government accountable for its actions. However, we must not let this tool be abused. The means by which we should keep such abuse from taking place is not through personal restraint, as we cannot depend on that. The means by which we prevent such abuse is the Rule of Law, and in the United States, this Law takes the form of the Constitution. If the Constitution denies the government the power to enact a law, it matters not how many people may be in favor of that law.