The Danger of Dismantling Democracy

 

"Democracy is not only a form of governance.  It is a promise: a promise that we can live with one another in dignity, equality, solidarity, security, justice, and hope. Practicing democracy can enable us to grow, to learn, to care, and to act. Democracy promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but realizing this promise requires that society commit to governance based on the equal value of each of our voices, discernment of our common interests through association, deliberation, and learning; and respect for the exercise of individual and collective agency." --Marshall Ganz in People, Power, Change

Don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Look, we didn’t know.” For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve. (Proverbs 24:12 CEB)

Throughout history, democracy has remained a fragile experiment.  The idea that government is "of the people" and "for the people" has been an uneasy one, particularly when examining European nations.  Interestingly, some of the longest-lasting democracies originated from Native American nations, such as the Muscogee Nation, which had modeled and practiced democracy for nearly 1,500 years before encountering European colonialism.  Ironically, the Muscogee Nation would be forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by another budding democracy, the United States, in the 1830's.  So much for the rhetoric that democracies do not war with or conquer one another.

In the United States, the Constitution was designed to establish a republican system with multiple checks and balances to control power.  They were careful to separate church and state to prevent nationalist Churches, as they had experienced in Europe.  They had limited powers in the executive branch and removed its ability to legislate or control the funding.  This prevented monarchy or authoritarian leadership.  They instilled rights and freedoms that empowered the citizenry to participate in governing themselves.  These rights were modified over time to clarify and solidify the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

Now, there is a significant difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic is a representative from of government that is guided by a charter or constitution.  A democracy is a representative form of government that has a constitution that ensures the participation and voice of the citizenry.  In the founding of the US, the constitution provided for representation by White, male land-owners.  Native Americans, African Americans, women, and the poor were not accounted for and generally had no voice in the governance of the people.  Unrepresented people were the majority of the United States' inhabitants for the first 100 years.  In short, we had an aristocracy.

With time and with much blood, the right to participate and vote was expanded to poor Whites, then women, Blacks, Asians, Latin Americans, and finally, Native Americans.  There was a shift in which democracy had to include the participation of all people and recognize that the rights of the citizenry were inalienable. 

Part of the civic religion that has developed over the course of American history is the concept that meritocracy is prioritized.  Meritocracy is the idea that the most capable individuals lead and that all people have access to and opportunities to lead, according to their abilities.  In the colonial era, this was the justification for limiting the majority of inhabitants of the United States from participating in politics.  The founders essentially believed that only those with wealth and who were White had the ability to lead.  As the nation grew, a reckoning slowly emerged, revealing that wealth and talent were not necessarily connected.  Wealth and power are connected, but that doesn't mean that the wealthiest are the most capable.  In fact, one can argue that aristocracies, monarchies, oligarchies, and limited republics are in direct opposition to meritocracy and democracy.  Limiting participation based on some inherent feature or elevated caste, undermines the concept of democracy.

As the United States expanded its definition of citizenship, a challenge arose to those in generational positions of power, questioning their right to lead.  The questioning came on two fronts.  First, the aristocrats were not representative of the majority of citizens.  A significant disconnect persisted between the experiences of the aristocracy and the common populace.  Secondly, they had done very little to show they were qualified and capable of leading.

Democracy flourishes when all citizens' rights and responsibilities are extended to those willing to support the Constitution, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

Today, democracy exists to the extent that the governance is by the people and for the people.  While it is impossible for over 300 million people to have their individual opinions considered in most government issues, a system exists where the will of the people is carried out by elected officials who then gather to develop policies and procedures in accordance with the guidelines of the Constitution.  The key to this process is that all governance is accountable to the people (i.e., elected officials) and the guidelines specified in the constitution. The Judicial branch interprets the intent of those guidelines when it is unclear if a policy is consistent with the Constitution.  The legislative branch creates laws (policies and procedures) and controls the funding of all initiatives.  The executive branch simply executes the laws and protects the Constitution.  Therefore, the Judicial system cannot make laws, but it provides accountability to the legislative branch to ensure that the laws passed are consistent with the intent of the Constitution.  For example, Congress can not pass a law that infringes on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  Similarly, the executive branch cannot create laws or mandate funding or the lack thereof.  Each branch has a means of accountability that goes back to the Constitution and the will of the people.

With that oversimplified understanding of government polity, I want to share 5 different ways democracy is being dismantled.  This is not an attack on a political party or leader, but I use real examples so that we can get beyond hypotheticals.  Most importantly, none of this can happen without the citizenry's consent. That means that democracy's stability is something that you can literally fight for.

1. Impair access to the ballot:  The foundation of a citizen's participation in governance is the duty to vote.  In the last 5 years alone, nearly half of the states have passed laws making it significantly more difficult to vote while the Federal government has stepped away from its civil rights era practice of providing oversight to prevent racial and ethnic discrimination that has been rampant in the elections.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice:

"The restrictive laws passed in the last 10 years target every aspect of voting, including making voter registration more difficult, curtailing early voting opportunities, closing polling places, and limiting voter assistance. However, a substantial portion of the restrictive laws passed since Shelby County coalesce around two major trends: strict voter ID legislation just after the decision and limitations on mail voting after the 2020 election."

The effect has been significant voter suppression, disproportionately targeting voters of color.  If there is not equal and accessible opportunity to vote, then democracy is threatened.

2. Gerrymander districts to perpetuate partisan dominance.  Gerrymandering is the manipulation of congressional districts in order to keep a particular party or alliance in power.   In gerrymandering, the representatives in power, chose their voters instead of voters choosing their elected officials.  Classically this is done through 2 means:

Cracking means that the state legislature, which redraws the districts every 10 years, identifies areas with dense concentrations of voters who oppose them.  They then "crack" them into multiple parts, diffusing those unsupportive voters among an overwhelming majority of supportive voters.  I live in Texas, which is one of the most gerrymandered states.  If you look at the map below and identify District 23 (lavender on the map), which is controlled by the Republican party. It takes a part of the traditionally democratic west side of San Antonio and disperses it across a vast area that would take 8 hours to drive.

There is no meaningful way for those who do not support the partisan position in power to change the majority, because even if there is enough support, it is dispersed in such a way that the opposition is always the minority.  This leads to another form of gerrymandering, called "packing".

Packing is a method where you consolidate unsupportive voters into as few districts as possible.  For example, if you had a metropolitan area that is strongly unsupportive of whoever is in power.  Rather than having that dense pocket of opposition influence the suburbs and exurbs, which have many of your supporters, you simply pack as many unsupportive voters together so that you still have significantly greater districts that are controlled by your party, ensuring legislative dominance.  Thus, voters who are unsupportive of the party in power still have a voice, but it is a minority voice, one that lacks legislative influence.  Resulting in voters of packed regions do not have the same influence as those in regions supportive of the party in power.

3. Remove accountability for each branch of government: Every branch of government is dependent on and accountable to the others.  The government has implemented checks and balances to prevent individuals from abusing their authority or exploiting their position for personal gain. Offices such as the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel provide independent oversight to maintain accountability. Additionally, governmental agencies that promote oversight are to be semi-autonomous and independent of partisan activities.  This is why the FBI directors of the last 3 Democratic presidential administrations were Republicans. By removing these offices or replacing them with partisan appointees, all accountability to the public is lost.  Firing attorneys in the Department of Justice who were effectively doing their job in prosecuting the perpetrators of the January 6th insurrection, along with pardoning all of those convicted of crimes associated with it, removes any accountability that those who participated in the deadly insurrection have to the people.  

Recently, a judge ruled that his deportation of immigrants without due process was unconstitutional.  Again, a means of accountability to the executive branch.  That ruling was ignored.  In fact, the judge who ruled that is now be threatened by the President.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court Chief Justice literally needed to correct the president, who also ignored that warning.  This demonstrates a frightening amount of authoritarianism, as there is no way to restrain the executive branch. This is the epitome of a constitutional crisis.

4. Remove freedom of speech: The right to free speech is not the right to say whatever you want, particularly if the speech causes harm to others.  However, it is the right to freely express oneself, to freely be critical, and to engage in protest against policies that you may disagree with.  Historically, public protest has been seen as a powerful tool for change, particularly for citizens who felt unheard.  One way to restrict the freedom to protest is by criminalizing it.  Most recently, there have been a number of efforts to make mass protests prohibitive. A recent military order prohibits the use of language that is perceived as disrespectful or contemptuous of the president, directly challenging freedom of speech.  The overall effect is that one of the most effective means of political advocacy is being sharply curtailed.  

Another way this is being exploited is by applying constitutional freedom of speech to violent and hate speech when those who express it are allies with the political regime in power.  So, violent insurrectionists are reframed as patriots who are exercising their First Amendment rights, but peaceful campus activists who oppose our support of the ongoing violence in Gaza are criminalized.  This is not to say that there were no violent campus protests or that some of the January 6th participants were peaceful bystanders.  It is to focus on which protests are encouraged, and which are discouraged.

5. Allow for inequality in representative power. Both the Electoral College and the representative formula for the US Senate encourage inequality.  This means that some people's vote has more influence than others.  In 2016, President Trump won the majority in over 85% of US counties.  However, the population in the 15% of counties that Hilary Clinton won represents over 65% of the entire  US population, resulting in her having nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump.  Despite winning the popular vote, she lost the Electoral College vote by 74 votes.  Consider the fact that those in rural areas have greater representation in the Senate,, and we understand how federal elections involve more than just one citizen and one voice.  If democracy is a reflection of the will of the people, then realigning electoral processes to align with the popular vote is necessary.  

Democracy only works when we have a system of governance where the will of the people can be expressed and that political participation is unabridged. This is often challenging in heightened partisan conditions, but the government functions best when there is political pluralism and multiple voices that reflect the nation's diversity.

The writer of Proverbs warns us not to use ignorance as our excuse for lack of advocacy (see above).  There is a temptation to understand the rights of the citizenry without understanding the responsibilities.  Democracy will remain only to the degree to which the collective citizenry maintains it.  Repeating an earlier quote:

"Democracy promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but realizing this promise requires that society commit to governance based on the equal value of each of our voices, discernment of our common interests through association, deliberation, and learning, and respect for the exercise of individual and collective agency." --Marshall Ganz

 We must not allow the tenets of democracy, including freedom of speech, equality in voting, and accountable governance, to be compromised; instead, we must insist on governance for the people and by the people.  We must return to a non-partisan understanding of patriotic behavior that promotes and protects democracy.  

"True patriotism is proved by the tangible, transformative actions its citizens take to bring forth a justice-based social order."--Theologian Miguel A. De La Torre