Introduction

Scholars are divided on what constitutes a “democracy” and which connotations should follow it. Some choose to double-down, favoring it as a cornerstone of advancements and framing it as the only viable option despite its glaring flaws through declarations like James Issac’s: “Democracy is a flawed outcome of struggle worth defending, and that the idea of free and equal democratic will formation has furnished, and continues to furnish, a powerful normative ideal.” (Isacc 2018)  These ideas make up the centerfold of literature, echoing thoughts and opinions that put democracy in the limelight as an ideal value to strive for. However, others take a cynical approach in appraising the question by posing the question of whether the status quo’s edition actually abides by its ideal characteristics. Alan Baidou argues against brandishing it with endless positive connotations; “The only way to make truth out of the world we're living in is to dispel the aura of the word democracy” (Baidou 2011). Baidou claims that democracy “is just a word for a conservative oligarchy whose main business is to guard its own territory as animals do.” These later perspectives are particularly valuable in the modern era because they represent a liberating piece of fresh air that begins a critique of democracy.

It is a combination of these perspectives that best allows us to recognize democracy's flaws as an issue in the status quo while offering solutions to democracy as an actively central issue that needs more attention.

2a. Carefully framing the interpretation

It is essential that democracy is evaluated empirically and impartially. An empirical study conducted by Shawn Rosenberg, a political science and psychology professor at the University of Irvine, showed our tendencies to allow biases to cloud our thinking, obstructing efficient analysis and effective decision making. The prompt is misleading because it quietly asserts an underlying message that democracy is at Goldilocks equilibrium.

Rosenbergs' study was also directed as a criticism demonstrating the unsustainability of democracy. Democracy is unnatural to human nature since humans are entirely geared towards effective leadership, so a directive like democracy acts not only as a barrier but also as a catalyst for our own destruction. In the same way that humans shift towards elite control, the collapse of freedom under a democratic system is a given because it relies on the fallacy of competence. The values that democracy represents are actually unraveling. A complicated political system is fostered in ignorance and made powerful with misinformation. Rosenberg points out that most citizens do not exercise their democracy to their fullest extent, rather making the choice that their hidden biases point out to them. The average busy citizen does not wield their given democratic power responsibly and scarcely delves into the implications of their political choices and actions. [And] “[w]hen they do reflect, [...] it consists of a rationalization of Bias” (Rosenberg 365). Ironically, this essay will be read and reviewed as part of a competition in the remembrance of one of the most vocal advocates of liberal democracy. Perhaps it is for this reason that keeping our unconscious tendencies in check is so pivotal.

3. Locke

John Locke’s thesis on democracy is imperfect for a multitude of reasons. First, his theory of government relies on the presumption that a state’s subjects are well-educated, qualified decision-makers. Ideally, a responsible actor would facilitate well-rounded decisions responsible for the careful maintenance and preservation of their beloved commonwealth. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable expectation of citizens, backed by empirical evidence like the Flynn effect, which showed that the average intellect and cognitive abilities of the global human population have steadily been increasing, perhaps due to factors like increased nutrition, better educational systems, and better access to healthcare, etc.

Locke's assumptions seem reasonable without careful analysis and reflection. Citizens, as subjects of the state, are supposed to be rational or informed in a way that would allow them to make choices that would resolve many social issues responsibly. However, that is clearly not the case. Misinformation, advertisements, and many convoluted daily sensory inputs mean our rational decision-making and logical apprehension are severely limited. Many factors like social media, societal issues, and clashing news inputs all contribute to an increasing amount of cognitive collapse and an inability to make effective decisions for social good. This forecloses the ability for positive futures towards advancing democracy and upholdment of its values. TikTok and other social media platforms have enabled misinformation to be spread faster than ever and contributed to our declining attention spans. Marco Annuziata, a research fellow with a PhD from Princeton, sums it up best: “These toxic new forces leverage digital technology to exploit our behavioral biases.” 

By “forces,” Annunziata is purposely vague. It’s a filler word for many factors and self-interest groups that would benefit from influencing our decision-making. It makes democracies especially vulnerable, escalating cascading feedback loops of deceptions and fids that degrade social trust and compromise our fundamental value of freedom and veracity. “In many democracies, voters faced with complex issues turn to simple answers and slogans, to the siren call of populism. They dismiss the experts [i.e, Brexit]; they look for scapegoats and easy fixes” (Annunziata 2019). The argument isn’t that voting is bad or that the people we do end up voting for are necessarily bad, but rather the reason we vote for them, and our biases and different information campaigns often cause us to make an irresponsible decision that foreclose necessary and immediate action that is crucial to resolve the action.

4. Qualities of a True Democracy

Total freedoms, our right to individuality, and “consent of the governed” are core qualities that philosophers like John Locke would say an ideal democracy should have. Theoretically, these merits make sense; they allow individual citizens power and the ability to make changes in the government, prevent dictators and restrictions on our quality of life, and restrict governments to a role that should only exist in the background, as per Locke’s social contract.

These qualifications might seem sensible and desirable to a peaceful world, each value ideally serving its own purpose of tending to its citizens. However in a world of chaos and confusion, it's clear that these scenarios would not work. 

4a. Pandemics

The central aspects of democracy involve the freedom of the individual. Government utility becomes limited, destroying the capabilities for government planning and, ironically, sparking more anarchy. In a situation of absolute chaos, like a pandemic, a democratic response would be lethargic and subpar. Crisis response from a democracy becomes limited by bureaucratic obstacles and the barrier of trying to enforce lockdowns and crises while simultaneously having to be careful not to infringe on individual rights. Pandemics require swift and rapid response to contact trace and quarantine. The central pillar in combating disease is swift and brutal responses early on. “Good government sometimes stems from deference to non-democratic authority” (Zhou 2021). Case studies of recent pandemics like SARS and the Coronavirus have oddly demonstrated how much more effective authoritarian systems like China are at combating catastrophes in times of uncertainty and upheaval. Authoritarian states have several advantages in combating crises compared to democracies. The average democracy has a long and complicated process of decision-making, where policymakers have to risk political capital and coordinate responses with the public, other politicians, and the media before coming up with an effective solution. Schwartz calls this the “authoritarian advantage” since democratic countries have a deficit of immediacy and swiftness in their response, originating from the endless clashing of authorities amongst different levels of jurisdiction and government that democracies have to engage with. Zhou concurs that a structural and systemic flaw in “democratic political institutions may be disadvantaged in responding quickly.” Another head-start that authoritarians have on democracy is their unrelenting and brutal enforcement. China is the best example of this; during COVID, the government responded with a level of ruthlessness that was necessary to combat the crisis. Entire provinces were locked down, individual rights were temporarily stripped away, families were separated into different sick camps, face masks and quarantines were mandated, and crucial top-down planning was executed to the utmost aspect. Peter attributes this to be the reason why China was able to curb the problem relatively quickly and avoid high death rates. Comparatively, the UK and the US struggled with their enforcement, having far more cases than China, demonstrating how democratic states must worry about their perception and be careful not to infringe upon individual citizens' rights. The crucial difference is the lack of restraint that less democratic states can exercise. Non-compliance is a cancer that less democratic states do not suffer from—which, obviously, has its pros and cons. 

4b. Climate Change

As previously mentioned, actions from democracies are constrained to a long and complicated legislative process. Constant interventions from self-interest groups and lobbyists mean that the institutional capacity for quick climate legislation and long-term, top-down solutions is limited. Policymakers refuse decarbonization and strict guidelines because “no electorate will vote to decimate its own lifestyle” (Battistroni 2020). Policymakers are only a reflection of the population that they represent. A systematic failure of 21st-century states in power is the massive push for economic growth that shapes our goals. Our priorities are propelled by economic theory, demanding more and more industrialization. Everyone agrees that stopping climate change is necessary, but few are willing to sacrifice their living standards to sustain future generations. Champions for democracy argue that active progress in the present demonstrates the increasing capacity for democracies to exercise rapid change. Warrants for sustaining present-day regulations often involve brandishing recent innovations or by showing off new multilateral agreements to encourage the idea that slowly but surely, democracy will solve.

The problem with this approach is that climate change cannot be solved gradually, which is what democracies are good at. Democracies’ capability for slow change does “not yet prove that they can put in place the transformative policies necessary to avert environmental degradation before dangerous tipping points.” (Sconfienza 2019). The approach of democracies revolves around pleasing and satisfying the needs of individuals. This comes with the barrier of improvisational accommodations needed to resolve modern-day issues.

Change has to be rapid, certain, and arguably radical in order to cut down on emissions immediately. Beeson’s study points out that limiting certain freedoms are necessary and has proven to be effective at resolving warming. Once again, China  “has arguably done more to mitigate environmental problems than any other government on earth: without the one-child policy.”  Combating warming, pollution, and ecocide requires deliberate and relentless action. Policies have to be fully realized and implemented without compromise. Current-day democracies revolve around selfish politicians focused on the sole goal of reelection, making it hard for them to do what is necessary. “To adapt to ecological limits and impending scarcity, governments will have to do unpopular things… Such policies cannot help but rankle, following decades of rising economic and social expectations” (Heinberg 2018). Decades of inaction on environmental policies have pushed us to the brink of climate change. Oil lobbyists, bipartisan gridlock, and internal disagreements all act as precedents for Lu's thesis that democracies do not have what it takes to resolve critical issues. Our priorities are shifted around increasing GDP and economic activity, even at the cost of future generations. “for politicians seeking re-election, certain costs such as confronting climate change are beyond their political horizon because doing so will impede economic growth” (Simpson 2016).

5. Conclusion

An overload of democracy isn’t an issue for the future; rather, it’s an actively present issue that demands our immediate attention. Cognition failure, political clog and inaction, deliberate misinformation, and zero political agency to resolve issues are mere headers on a laundry list of failures that follow the system of democracy. A combination of ideas from both ends of the political spectrum allows us to spread information and awareness about the flaws of democracies, which  is necessary to correct and resolve its issues in an age of confusion and turmoil and make it more adept at resolving its issues.