IDEA report

The ups and downs of democracy

While - in theory - most of us adhere to the opinion that 'democracy is the worst form of government except for all others', we largely do this in praise of the irony behind this statement, brought forward by Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947, referring to a quote he missed to identify at this occasion. In 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' (1945), Karl Popper gave a more sober definition of democracy as an efficient tool for getting rid of bad rulers without bloodshed and violence.
More than three quarters of a century later, an increasing number of populations in the world stick to democracies, and this proportion is still on the rise, inspite of several minor problems (see top figure). Thus, the concept seems to work, although we still seem to miss a true understanding of all its 'inner workings' - whatever this last term should mean. The human race, as all species forming extremely large societies, will always harbor some degree of unpredictablity, a natural feature of complex dynamic systems.
If we broaden the view on ourselves by scaling up from single individuals to the more meaningful population level, the social world appears as a colorful living tapestry covering the planet, and we all contribute to one or even more of these entities. Although our own contribution as an individual to further developments seems to be negligibly small, 'democracy' should guarantee that no single voice gets unheard. For each of us, this may feel like a miracle*, but to contribute successfuly to society, we have to believe in miracles.
At the same time, we should not be too naive: we should insist on at least the most basic principles of any democracy (e.g. one vote for each person - not counting infants). This was a matter of debate even from the beginnings in ancient Greece. It may be argued that wise decisions need knowledge and reason, and that not all members of a society command these qualifications to the same extent. But remember Karl Poppers insight: It is not the strength of democracy to find wisdom, but to avoid its misuse.
It is up to us to fill the concept with life. With some patience, democracies will ripen. No single ruler should expect in his/her lifetime to see the fruits of his/her skills and efforts. Most average lay persons have the spontaneous instinct to sense the true ambitions of any applicant asking for their votes. The result is not so much dependent on expertise but on statistics: personal taste is cancelled out, but positive general impression will add up.
To vote is no intellectual act. It is a service to society everybody is summoned to deliver. To be relevant, votes need participation. Their results have to be respected with humility, as the verdict of an authority surpassing our own by far. Impeding the undisturbed delivery of votes or manipulating their evaluation is a severe crime. The victim of this crime is the whole population. Sometimes, we may not welcome the result of a particular vote, but nevertheless we should accept it as inescapable as bad weather.
Both, the weather and human populations, obey the more or less fuzzy laws of complex dynamic systems.
6/22 <          MB 12/22          > 11/23
see also: How to deal with angry voters?
*After reading, my wife asked me to be more specific on the term 'miracle'. She is probably right with her warning, I might evoke the wrong impression. Of course I remain on solid scientific ground (although, complex dynamic systems & solidity...). Here, the term 'miracle' is used for a process surmounting our own capabilities as a single person and isn't meant as something out of the natural.
Calhoun C, Gaonkar DP, Taylor C (2022) Degenerations of Democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.