Preservation Of Democracy Has Emerged As One Of The Most Consequential Issues Of The 2024 Election. Candidates and pundits have cited political rhetoric with autocratic overtones as a primary threat to American democracy. While any threat to democracy deserves attention, a related and equally disturbing reality has emerged: Many Americans lack a fundamental understanding of what democracy means and how it should function.
To understand, democracy requires an appreciation of two basic factors. The first centers on the fundamental principles of a modern democracy. The second, which should be regularly taught and continually reviewed, is the historic development of democracy in American government.
Various theories of democracy abound. While these theories have nuanced differences, they share “freedom“ as a fundamental concept. Freedom includes as subsets autonomy and liberty. Democracy’s intersection with freedom presupposes that individuals within a republic would have a voice in how they are governed. As Abraham Lincoln had famously recognized, “[D]emocracy is the government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.”
The website of the State of Nebraska legislature notes that the founders of this country specifically rejected the establishment of a monarchy, which by definition eschews participatory governance. Instead, the founders decided that the United States would be a democracy – a political system in which ultimate authority rests with the people. As such, they sought to create a “republic“ that would include diverse constituencies involved in collective self-governance.
Applying principles from science and history to the management of public relations, John Jay, one of the founders, referenced the writings of Aristotle and Cicero – two philosophers who recognized that political power in a democracy rests with the people and their representatives. Thomas Jefferson, another founder who also served as America’s third president, espoused the view that democracy included social equality, economic equality, freedom, and republicanism.
The founders also recognized the frailties of a democracy. George Washington, the first President of the United States, observed that a republican form of government, also called “American democracy,“ constituted a great “experiment.“ To be precise, Washington, in his first inaugural address, stated that America is “a republican model of government that is an experiment and trusted to the hands of the American people.“
Benjamin Franklin, who served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, agreed that the democratic system of government founded in America created a republic. He, nonetheless, observed, that America is “a republic, if you can keep it.“ Franklin believed that the establishment of a republic on paper was easy; preserving it would be difficult.
Political theorists have opined that the difficulty in sustaining American democracy lies in the principle of minority rights. In its generic form, democracy operates by majoritarian rule, where binding decisions come from a vote of more than half of all persons who participate in elections. However, as recognized by John Patrick in his Oxford University Press article, Understanding Democracy, a constitutional democracy as established in American government requires majority rule to take place in tandem with minority rights.
This principle of majority rule and minority rights in American democracy has been documented by Thomas Jefferson, who stated that “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, it will must be reasonable. The minority possess their rights, which [an] equal law must protect, and [the violation of which] would be tantamount to oppression.“
The inherent conflict between majority rule and minority rights has, in the view of some historians and theorists, contributed to the perennial tensions that exist in American democracy today. These tensions exacerbate political divisions, reinforce polarization, and ultimately lead to serious conflict.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of the tension between majority rule and minority rights centered on the country’s history with slavery. Debate regarding this problematic institution boiled over into an unprecedented altercation on May 22, 1856. Massachusetts, Senator Charles Sumner, delivered and impassioned speech in Chambers on the evils of slavery. Upon hearing the speech, South Carolina representative Preston Brooks used his cane to beat Sumner into unconsciousness. Sumner suffered grave injuries as a result.
Most were aghast at Brooks’s assault upon Sumner, while some others cheered his action. Many historians considered this heinous act a significant stepping stone toward the American Civil War.
Other historic events also illustrated the tension between majority rule and minority rights. The struggle for civil rights, which reached a fever pitch in the 1950s and 1960s, led to dramatic protests, some involving violent confrontations. America’s conflict in Vietnam, which prompted volatile demonstrations, represented another polemic event that tested the stability of the republic.
Today, the precarious health of American democracy has taken center stage once again in dramatic fashion. While some political theorists blame alarmist and misleading rhetoric for this dilemma, others opine that the ultimate culprit that threatens American democracy is the electorate’s seemingly intractable polarization. In Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States, a September 5, 2023 work sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation, Rachel Kleinfeld argues that polarization prevents compromise, which is a fundamental requirement for a functional democracy. She further states that the rise of the “us versus them“ phenomenon in American politics has created a mindset that galvanizes individuals into rigid political identities. As a result, reaching consensus becomes untenable due to resulting divisions that threaten republican unity.
Unfortunately, history reveals that there are few panaceas for the ills resulting from polarization. Any possible cure, however, has as a fundamental element the body politic’s vestment in civility.
Carol Geist Viard, who published the article, The Pragmatist Method, in the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy (2015), states that civil interactions are inexorable elements of democratic citizenship. Ms. Viard further posits that democracy allows political principles to “come to life,” with civility viewed as democracy’s essential element that should be seen an activity rather than a set of rigid rules.
Ms. Viard’s thesis supports the proposition that civility must be vigorously defended and continually emphasized. It also becomes integral to the establishment of respect, trust, solidarity, and in many instances, authority. Civility leads to sociability, a concept that creates a political link between an interactive citizenry and a truly functional republic.
As the 2024 election looms, individuals who seek to maximize their own political aims must ultimately realize that their aims are unachievable unless there is civil interaction. As Carol Geist Viard observes, fruitful civil interaction requires a degree of mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. At the end of the day, the “people“ who make up a republic and seek optimize their goals must appreciate the value of, and support those who foster, social cohesion.
As voters head to the polls in 2024, issues such as the economy, immigration, and fairness in taxation will be top-of-mind. An essential addition to this list must be the health of the republic as a functional democracy. Focused attention on this critical issue becomes paramount if America hopes, as Benjamin Franklin words advises, to “keep“ our republic.