Democracy is a broad term.
The kind of democracy that we enjoy in the United States is far from direct, by design. This was not just a compromise because of the transportation and communication problems of the 18th century. The Framers--upperclass, merchants, white landowning males all--did not trust the people. They feared tyranny of the majority and passions of the moment more than they feared autocracy. To a great extent, the system that has evolved in the US gives the illusion of democracy more than the reality. We are a constitutional, representative, federalized republic. The continued existence of the electoral college--and it's impact on the last election--speak volumes.
I'm not that enamored of democracy. It works more-or-less here, but it has evolved over 200 years. Would you call the political system of the US in the early-to-mid-19th century "democratic?"
If free and fair democratic elections were held today in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, or China, the outcome would be a disaster for the United States. Every Arab state would elect fundamentalist or otherwise anti-US regimes. We saw what happened in Algeria, and Iran is also a good example of the consequences of popular will. We would lose every cooperative Arab government. In China, we would probably see a strongly nationalistic government. We would not see rule of law, a separation of powers, or checks and balances.
Part of becoming democratic means letting the people make bad decisions, living (or dying) with the consequences, and evolving toward moderation. |
