Love of Democracy

by Don Harkey

The United States is a country full of people who are in love with Democracy. However, most people don't truly understand what this means, or what the Founding Fathers of our country thought about Democracy. Also, if Democracy is so important, then why don't we use a form of it in business?

The map attached above is from Wikipedia. It supposedly shows all of the worlds "self-identified" democracies in blue and other forms of government in red. It is interesting that countries like China and Iran consider themselves a democracy. Obviously there is a lot of confusion about what this truly means. This is a complex topic, so I will simply share my limited understanding along with my viewpoint of what we are dealing with.

The term "democracy" can be defined (to quote Wikipedia again) as "a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system". This definition is certainly less than clear and hardly universal. Most people think about democracy as a government run by the "will of the people".

Today's technologies make it more possible than ever to run a "pure" democracy. You could envision a system where proposed laws and policies are submitted into a mass database to be continuously discussed, debated, and voted upon by users via the internet. Should we go to war in Iraq? Ask the people. Should we send an additional 20,000 troops to Afghanistan? Ask the people. Should we pass an $800,000,000,000 stimulus package? Ask the people.

Back in Colonial America, this was simply not a practical option. National elections were incredibly difficult and time consuming. Information was not readily available throughout the country. A true democracy would have been impossible. So here is the big question. If the internet was available in 1787, would the United States be designed differently?

The answer is probably (and hopefully) no. The Founding Fathers understood a the problems with a pure democracy. First of all, the will of the people tends to cycle dramatically with current events and headlines. If given a chance to vote continuously on national policy, there would be no consistency or vision. We would be operating under a "Pop Government". A great recent example is the Iraq war. Popular vote would have engaged the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq, then withdrawn the forces a couple of years later in a bitter defeat. Instead, our elected leaders saw a chance to improve the situation and stayed the course. Another example (perhaps less controversial) is the United States' involvement in World War II. If a popular vote were held throughout the war, would the United States have continued to engage in the conflict, even as there were few signs that victory was even possible? If the popular vote was used, what would happen to the rights of minorities? Would we outlaw all guns in response to a school shooting? Would we outlaw Muslims from using domestic air traffic after September 11th?

The other problem with a pure democracy is the natural desire for people to vote themselves more "stuff". If I were to present legislation for popular vote saying that the government will provide $20,000 to anyone who wants to purchase a new house, would it pass? Is this a good idea? The idea is that a pure democracy will continue to expand the size of its government in order to provide the masses with more benefits until the government eventually becomes large enough to become socialist or even a dictatorship.

The Founding Fathers were pretty darn smart and they spent more time than anyone in modern history thinking hard about what type of government would work the best. George Washington himself called government a "necessary evil" and encouraged the limitation of the government's power. Instead of holding national elections on every topic, the United States operates as a Republic. A Republic is a form of "indirect" democracy where representatives are elected to positions to then make decisions on policy and law. This forms a designed buffer between popular opinion and policy.

In the media today, I hear many people arguing against this form of government from both sides of the political spectrum. George W. Bush ignored the will of the people and continued an unpopular war in Iraq and should be impeached. No. Our government worked exactly the way it was designed to work. A majority of Americans are against the recently signed Stimulus Package, so our representatives are failing us. No. Again, this is how it is supposed to work.

Companies operate the same way. If the will of the people were followed for company policy, you can only imagine the chaos that would ensue. Workers would vote themselves more and more benefits until the company could no longer sustain them. This is similar to what is happening in Michigan with the American auto companies. The unions have become powerful enough to vote themselves so much power that the companies can no longer operate effectively.

I pause here to think about what I want you take away from this article. I guess I have many reasons for addressing this subject. First of all, I want people in the United States to understand their government a little more and understand that Freedom and true Democracy are not equivalents. Second, I want business leaders to think about how to use the opinions of the masses, but still make decisions based on their judgment.

Listen to the masses, pray, then use your best judgment. Do not allow a misunderstanding of the merits of democracy to cloud your vision!