Context
The emerging authoritarian government in America teaches us is that neither [moral] value, truth nor democracy, can be taken for granted. -- Michael Lynch, Truth and Authoritarianism in America, Politics and Rights Review, 2025
Comparing morality inherent in democracy and authoritarianism is not something the public significantly exposed to. It comes up in small slivers of academia, but the subject seems to be otherwise ignored, maybe taboo to some extent. Given the human condition, it is obvious as to why people inclined to accept or support authoritarianism would prefer to keep quiet. There isn't nearly as much good to tout about dictatorship, theocracy, oligarchy or kleptocracy as there is to tout about pluralist representative democracy.
Rational examination of the evidence supports this view. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is clear about the moral dimension: "Normative democracy theory aims to provide an account of when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for guiding the design of democratic institutions and the actions of citizens and representatives."
Democracy is vulnerable to authoritarianism under conditions such as when citizens are manipulated and select poor leadership that makes bad decisions, or when politicians are not held accountable for their failures or corruption. A lack of responsibility to citizens tends to undermine politicians' concern for the common good. That inclines them to make sectarian and divisive appeals to citizens, which in turn makes authoritarianism look like a better option.
America arguably is in one of those periods when authoritarianism looks pretty good to many people. Poll data backs up that assertion. However, sight should not lost of the fact that, for the most part, the political and economic forces that put us in this position are due to authoritarianism, not mistakes of democracy.
At present American radical right authoritarianism is having profound adverse effects on our democracy, rule of law, government, society, commerce, religion, education, culture, and scholarship. The evidence of authoritarian impacts is abundant.
A morality comparison
A good moral case for democracy can boil down to two major points.
Dignity and respect: One of democracy's core moral foundations lies in trying to treat each person with equal or reasonable dignity and respect. The execution isn't always perfect or even always getting better, but at least the moral ideal is generally accepted. By contrast, authoritarian systems are inherently based on hierarchical rule. Dignity and rights of individuals are conditional and contingent on the will or interests of those in power. Rather than treating individuals as ends in themselves, authoritarian rulers commonly treat subjects as means or tools to consolidate power, demonstrate obedience, or support state goals.
Research indicates that authoritarian regimes are usually associated with systematic human rights abuses, greater inequality, reduced social trust, and restrictions on individual flourishing—all directly undercutting universal dignity.
Implicit powers: Implicit in dignity and respect in democracy is a grant of certain powers to citizens. That power allows citizens have at least some say in how they are governed and under what laws they are willing to accept. In a representative democracy, elections and voting are the most direct and potent way to exercise this power. Another power grant is in citizens' right to support, oppose or criticize elected politicians and government policies and laws.
Rights inherent in democracy such as speech, protest and voting, are not just empty symbols. They are enforceable claims that empower citizens to hold leaders accountable. That is essentially absent in genuine authoritarian systems.
Accountability and adaptability: Democracy's competitive elections, independent media, and peer-reviewed research enable societies to recognize and respond to problems more effectively than authoritarian systems that suppress information and dissent. Democracies are much better than authoritarian regimes at information transfer to decisionmakers. Democratic institutions also tend to be more flexible to adapt to changing circumstances.
Minority protections, less war: Research indicates that democracy is better at protecting minorities despite generally being based on majority rule. Constitutional civil liberties and the rule of law restrain majority power and protect individual rights in ways authoritarian systems cannot match. There aren't many examples of democracies fighting wars with each other. When democracies do engage in conflict, it's almost always with autocracies. This democratic peace theory is one of the strongest empirical findings in political science.
Circumstantial evidence: Most authoritarian regimes claim to be democratic. That assertion is demagoguery to deflect from the reality that people have very little power or say in government or how they live their lives. The dictators that run North Korea, arguably the world's most brutal and anti-democratic country on the planet, cynically call their country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
“The sides [Russia and China] share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of states, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community. The sides believe that democracy is a means of citizens' participation in the government of their country with the view to improving the well-being of population and implementing the principle of popular government.” -- Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, 2022 -- signed on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Some of the most brutal, murderous dictators on the planet lay claim to democracy. The reason is obvious. Few people willingly say they want to live under authoritarianism. Most people want freedom, and whether they know it or not, the power inherent in freedom. It really is just that simple.
An unpleasant truth
While signs of autocracy are clear to informed observers, mass manipulation can blind entire populations to authoritarian reality. Although most people say they think for themselves, people and whole societies can be deceived. For example, 2021 poll data from China indicated that 83% believed the communist-led People's Republic was a democracy. An amazing 91% of Chinese citizens said that democracy is important to them. Based on that data, China's dictators apparently see the moral value of democracy. They try their best to create an illusion of democracy among most of 1.4 billion when none exists. If the poll data is accurate, they succeeded. Democratic values are so powerful that even authoritarian regimes manufacture illusions of democracy to maintain legitimacy.
Discussion
If democracy is morally superior but sometimes produces bad outcomes such as extreme gridlock, excessive corruption or incompetent leadership, does that justify authoritarianism? Even if authoritarianism occasionally delivers a good result does that outweigh loss of dignity and citizen power? Is the concentration or wealth and power inherent in authoritarianism morally superior to democracy's tendency to better distribute power and wealth?
No comments:
Post a Comment