Democracy (Fetishism) in America
The debate over whether to initiate new primaries in Florida and Michigan demonstrates, once again, the almost sacred status bestowed on arguments from democracy, elections and the principle of majority-rule. In recent American politics arguments anchored in these institutions have often functioned as trump cards - once they are drawn all debate must end. After all, who among us is against democracy?
Lately this dynamic is found not only in the commonly held view that Senator Barack Obama simply cannot oppose the inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the delegates tally or resist the alternative of a new vote, but also in the notion that the super delegates to the Democratic Party's convention must not cast their votes in defiance of the sanctity of the majority's vote; even though the very reason for having super delegates is to supplement and at times even override the outcome of the majority.
This fetishism with voting, elections and "democracy" has characterized the administration of George W. Bush from its unexpected dawn to its currently fading dusk: the obsessive counting and recounting of hanging chads; the insistence on the recent elections in the Palestinian territories, which led to the rise to power of Hamas; the calamity of "bringing democracy" to Iraq; the continuing dogmatic insistence on free elections in Cuba as a precondition for recognition and the obsessive hostility to "judicial activism."
Democracy, elections and majority rule are obviously important and valuable principles and institutions. But their value is not absolute. Arguments from democracy should not be used to silence or delegitimize arguments from other principles, such as efficiency, finality, stability, rationality, welfare and autonomy that often override the benefits of holding a popular vote. One would hope that the currently prevalent discourse of change would shed the often disastrous fetishism and religious-like devotion to the institutions of voting and elections – after all, "The Greatest Danger to the American Republics Comes from the Omnipotence of the Majority."
Posted by Ori Herstein
Lately this dynamic is found not only in the commonly held view that Senator Barack Obama simply cannot oppose the inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the delegates tally or resist the alternative of a new vote, but also in the notion that the super delegates to the Democratic Party's convention must not cast their votes in defiance of the sanctity of the majority's vote; even though the very reason for having super delegates is to supplement and at times even override the outcome of the majority.
This fetishism with voting, elections and "democracy" has characterized the administration of George W. Bush from its unexpected dawn to its currently fading dusk: the obsessive counting and recounting of hanging chads; the insistence on the recent elections in the Palestinian territories, which led to the rise to power of Hamas; the calamity of "bringing democracy" to Iraq; the continuing dogmatic insistence on free elections in Cuba as a precondition for recognition and the obsessive hostility to "judicial activism."
Democracy, elections and majority rule are obviously important and valuable principles and institutions. But their value is not absolute. Arguments from democracy should not be used to silence or delegitimize arguments from other principles, such as efficiency, finality, stability, rationality, welfare and autonomy that often override the benefits of holding a popular vote. One would hope that the currently prevalent discourse of change would shed the often disastrous fetishism and religious-like devotion to the institutions of voting and elections – after all, "The Greatest Danger to the American Republics Comes from the Omnipotence of the Majority."
Posted by Ori Herstein
posted by Ori Herstein @ 7:37 PM
9 Comments:
At 8:06 PM,
Hamilton said…
It seems to me that any blame here is more on elementary school history and "social studies" classes which teach that America is the best because we have democracy and everyone gets to vote and you can become President.
Unless that elementary school is in a U.S. Military zone in Panama, then that second part isn't as clear.
At 9:51 PM,
Mithras said…
It's overly simplistic to lump the competition for the Democratic presidential nomination or the 2000 Florida voting debacle with Bush's use of "democracy promotion" as the pretext for his foreign policy. The latter is clearly a sham; the former are very real questions of how strongly we value the republican form of government and the rule of law.
At 9:42 AM,
Ethan said…
Great post, Ori. Seems to me the hanging chad-obsession might be as well justified by an argument from stability--an effort to comply with ex ante rules--while efforts to seat the MI & FL delegates could not.
Separately: have any thoughts on an electorate's "right" to act irrationally? E.g., should a majority terrified of genetically modified organisms be able to require disclosure, even if there's evidence GMOs present no risk? [Pls. assume the costs of irrational fear don't make a disclosure statute itself rational.] (See Vt. Dairy, 92 F.3d 67 for a negative answer.)
Look forward to your next post.
At 3:56 PM,
egarber said…
Democracy, elections and majority rule are obviously important and valuable principles and institutions. But their value is not absolute. Arguments from democracy should not be used to silence or delegitimize arguments from other principles, such as efficiency, finality, stability, rationality, welfare and autonomy that often override the benefits of holding a popular vote.
Overall, I think there is a proper respect for other components within our larger system. For instance, few people advocate that we utilize direct democracy as a way to vote on complex legislation (although I'll grant that there is an over-reliance on state-level voter initiatives in some places). And I don't know anybody who thinks voters should decide proper EPA rules for pollution levels, or SOX compliance standards.
"Democracy" as a value certainly hits home in the election process itself; that's where you really see its elevation as the final word. But to me, that's a good thing. However much the system requires us to trust leaders who make decisions on our behalf, pure democracy IS the right formula for electing them in the first place.
At 4:36 PM,
Sobek said…
I'd be very interested in seeing you develop your contention that considerations such as efficiency and stability should sometimes trump democracy. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you (for example, the Commander in Chief designates where troops go, not a majority vote), but it seems like only a highly unusual situation should result in disenfranchisement for the sake of efficiency.
Concerning the counting and recounting of hanging chads, that was done at Mr. Gore's instigation, not Mr. Bush's.
"But their value is not absolute."
Again, without disagreeing with you, I just wonder if you have any kind of framework for when and how other considerations should trump democracy. Elections are inherently inefficient: if the money spent on campaigning were instead spent on welfare, or private sector development, or the military ... well, you see where I'm going with this: no one would argue that we dispense with elections in the name of efficiency. And stability and finality could be firmly established with a nice hereditary monarchy, but no one seriously recommends that, either. Indeed, the Constitution seems designed to impede efficiency, and allow the public to countervene stability when it's time for the old regime to go.
At 4:40 PM,
egarber said…
Concerning the counting and recounting of hanging chads, that was done at Mr. Gore's instigation, not Mr. Bush's.
Yeah, Bush preferred to have the actual election bypassed in favor of a judicial appointment.
At 6:53 PM,
Sobek said…
"Bush preferred to have the actual election bypassed in favor of a judicial appointment."
Certainly it's more efficient.
Less sarcastically, there was an election and the first count showed Bush as the winner. Gore wanted to re-count only in three heavily-Democratic counties. To do so would inevitably skew the results, thus giving residents of those three counties more than their proportional say in the process.
At 7:05 PM,
egarber said…
To do so would inevitably skew the results, thus giving residents of those three counties more than their proportional say in the process.
But Florida law was playing itself out. The Supreme Court jerked the Fla Supreme Court around -- and then stopped the final recount cold, partly because the Fla Court was paralyzed by the earlier ruling.
The larger point is that the state of Florida should have been allowed to count votes without federal interference. Every state has recount laws with similar arrangements; the Supreme Court's way around it was to claim that no precedent was being set. That was laughable, imo.
At 7:17 PM,
egarber said…
And the last Fla court ruling called for a statewide recount of undervotes (and maybe overs?) -- not simply the counties Gore requested earlier. That last ruling is what the SCOTUS halted.
Post a Comment
<< Home