[John Locke Essay Contest High Commendation] Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Introduction

The most extolled and complimented political system in the history of the world, “a noble masterpiece and a symbol of all virtues,” and the “most rewarding fruit of men’s determination for reformation” is the system called democracy. The foundation of this system dates back to ancient Athens, where every citizen actively participated in politics as the nation’s sovereign. Then, the belief was popularized by the Enlightenment philosophers as a replacement for monarchy and was finally implemented as a living system with the American Founding Fathers’ sweat and tears. Democracy of today, as Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines it, is a system of “government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation;” in other words, it is a system which gives equal rights and sovereignty to the people and establishes representatives to operate the nation directed by the majority’s decision (“Democracy”). Being one of the most-taken and popular political systems in the status quo, democracy is easily idealized and sanctified. However, as the creators, menders, and operators of democracy, it is the people’s duty to raise a question to the notion they take in so easily: Is democracy to be monitored and questioned? Despite the prevalent idealization of the system, democracy is a compromise, not an ideal, and it needs to be moderated and controlled for the best operation of the nation—in other words, there can indeed be “too much democracy.” 

The Idealization of Collective Intelligence and Its Refutation

Some idealize democracy and believe in it even to its extremity, blinded by the extravagant ideas and vocabulary of the system. Democracy is the only system that emphasizes terms like “liberty” and “rights” and coronates the citizens to be its rightful sovereigns. However, like many other ideas, the high maxims and ideals of democracy are not always translated into reality. The idea of “equal rights” to all men in practicality breaks down to a more utilitarian system prioritizing the majority’s opinion and collective intelligence, by the definition and the operation of democracy. Yet the notion that collective intelligence should be an unquestionable source of power is invalid. Admittedly, the majority’s opinion or collective intelligence is to be considered a decisive force for the operation of a democratic regime but an unquestioned and “too much” power and reliance only creates confusion and ineffectiveness. About such error, Socrates, from Plato’s The Republic, presents a convincing analogy: when sailors immobilize the captain on a ship because of their greed to take control of it and sail the ship without the knowledge to sail, the ship will sink because the sailors lack the expertise of the captain (Plato 189). When on a sail, a captain is the most credible source for decisions, and when there is a patient, a doctor is the most credible source for diagnosis; similarly, each sector of the nation’s operation needs its own experts (Plato 7). Yet if excessive democracy forces an unskilled popular opinion to be blindly applied to such sectors, the ship called government will sink. Therefore, “too much” democracy, or an extreme reliance on collective intelligence, exists and should be controlled and regulated to a certain extent. 

Possible Consequences of “Too Much Democracy”

Too much democracy—or an unguarded and blindly supported democracy—renders an excessive amount of power to the majority and leads to the oppression of the minority and an ineffective operation of the society. Democracy, by its definition and foundation, gives the majority the power to rule and decide, and the majority-rule system has been relatively agreeable throughout the history of democratic regimes to a certain extent. However, without any checks or regulations, such characteristic of democracy is easily abused to oppress the minority and create conformity pressure, creating “too much” of democracy—or a detriment of democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his writing “Democracy in America,” commented: “A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being…opposed to those of another being, which is styled a minority. If it is admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach?” (Tocqueville 309). As Tocqueville pointed out, men are abusive of their power by their nature, and regardless of what form of regime they create, their nature for abusing the power and oppressing the opponent will remain the same. Thus, ironically, even democracy can be “too much” with tyranny by unlimited power and faith given to popular opinion.

Even further, the tyranny of the majority leads to more destructive oppression of minorities and “too much” of democracy. Tocqueville describes the power of the majority by comparing it to that of a king: “The authority of the king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will, but the majority possesses [both the physical and moral power]” (Tocqueville 311). A monarchical regime can physically oppress its adversaries but not eradicate the opposition. For instance, when Christianity was persecuted by the Roman Empire, Christians were burned and tortured but continued their worship through underground churches. African American slaves also carried on their passion for independence despite the physical persecution of their masters. As such, physical persecution of an autocratic ruler only incites more adversaries to carry on because, through their physical martyrdom, the oppressed’s moral—or mental—determination strengthens even more. A prison cannot pluck out an idea from a prisoner. On the other hand, the majority’s power holds a “moral” impact on others as well as physical: since the “majority” oppresses the minority, the social atmosphere and the pressure for conformity—which are intangible but more impact on people’s mind—eradicates any seed of nonconformity or adversary to the popular opinion from the first place. In an environment where popular opinion dominates and is stressed continuously, not conforming to the thought is difficult. Even if some manage to divert and decide to swim against the tide, the social pressure will alienate them both physically and socially, with not many left to sympathize with the minor opinion. An autocratic tyrant may oppress the contest of the people but a democratic tyrant eradicates the controversy itself not to be discussed at all. 

Then, ironically, democracy’s pursuit of equality and liberty becomes only a hypocritical illusion. 

Moreover, excessive power rendered to the majority creates ineffective legislators and consequently an ineffective government. Alexis Tocqueville states that “[t]he legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is most easily swayed by the wishes of the majority” (Tocqueville 305). Since the legislators are elected by the majority’s decision, winning the majority’s favor becomes the legislators’ priority. The legislators will appeal to the popular opinion and promise and execute what the “majority” wants—even if that is something absurd. If a legislator does not abide by the public opinion, they will lose a seat in the congress, so the public’s opinion will become the Bible for the legislators.  Thus, rather than using their expertise to contribute to the welfare of the nation, the legislators will merely be swayed by popular opinion. For instance, with the public’s quick-changing and impulsive passion for different issues, the legislators may prioritize the issue the public is interested in rather than trying to solve actual problems at stake. Also, opinions that the public has about politics are sometimes invalid since they lack much practical knowledge about the operation of the government, but the legislators may abide by it regardless of the nation’s interest. This becomes the exact situation represented by Plato’s ship analogy and leads to the ineffectiveness of the whole government. Again, the point of this argument is not that the legislator must ignore public opinion; the legislator must attentively listen to the public opinion but should not regard it as the supreme source of decision. With “too much” of democracy, however, “there [will be] nothing in democratic states which is capable of resisting [the popular opinion]” (Tocqueville 305). 

Also, in an excessive democratic regime, as the majority’s voice holds such great power, one who controls the media may control and influence the public and thus the government. Especially in the modern days with the development of SNS and media, the public is an easier prey of the media to be manipulated. Men are social animals and form ideas and opinions through various inputs—especially SNS and news in these days. Thus, if one can control the media and present only favorable news to the public, the public will be deceived to accumulate the presented information to their opinions and influence others to conform to the movement as well. With its unquestionable power, the public will require the government to abide by the manipulated direction, leading to a manipulated government. For example, to conceal the injustice of a high government officer, the news media may be pressured to disclose savory celebrity scandals to distract the public attention from the injustice. 

Conclusion

As presented above, democracy is to be controlled and moderated and not idealized to express its full power upon the nation. No political ideals translated to reality are perfect and so is democracy, the most popular system of the status quo. Then, one may question: what is to be done now? Now aware that there is indeed “too much” of democracy and that it may be flawed, should the people of democratic nations mourn the imperfection of humankind and live in an existential crisis? Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father of the United States, was also struck with the same dilemma about the imperfection of the democratic system. He acknowledges that no political system can be perfect saying “that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels, in the forms of kings, to govern him?” (Jefferson 247). Yet he answers his own concern by saying, “[l]et us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles…resulting not from birth, but from our actions” (Jefferson 247). Though Jefferson was aware that the system and its operators were, from birth, incapable of establishing the perfect system, he compelled his fellow citizens to take action and strive forward to reach the ideals. Jefferson and the founding fathers did not idealize the system they were creating but rather compromised the ideals into reality—so that the ideals would not be mere illusions but practical systems that could work in real life. No system is perfect on its own, and democracy is also an imperfect system that needs to be guarded and moderated in case it becomes “too much.” However, ever struggling, ever compromising, but never giving up on reaching the unreachable perfection and a constant study and fixing of the system makes the system work. There is, indeed, “too much” democracy but never “too much” for endeavors and hopes. 

Works Cited

“Democracy.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy. Accessed 10 Jul. 2024.

Jefferson, Thomas. "First Inaugural Address." 1801. American Heritage: A Reader, edited 

by Hillsdale College History Faculty, Michigan, Hillsdale College Press, 2020, pp. 

245-248.

Plato. The Republic. Edited by G. R. F. Ferrari, translated by Tom Griffith, Cambridge, 

Cambridge UP, 2018.

Tocqueville, Alexis De. "Democracy in America." 1835. American Heritage: A Reader, edited 

by Hillsdale College History Faculty, Michigan, Hillsdale College Press, 2020, pp. 

295-330.