No one said Democracy was easy; but then again whatever’s worthwhile never is.
The recent American election is the poster child for the state of global democracy; things are precarious at best.
Everywhere you turn – from legacy media to social media to family gatherings – you see self-righteous, immature adult babies stomp their feet and scream that the “other” party is destroying the world. The greater their indignation, the more justified they seem to feel.
What is democracy?
Democracy, by definition, means a group decision that is confirmed by the will of the majority of those eligible to participate.
At first blush, it would seem that complete harmony in the group’s decision would be the perfect scenario; however, it’s quite the opposite.
An axiom of “good” decision-making means there must be disagreement. More to the point, if a group decision begins and ends with acclamation, the entire decision-making process is seriously flawed, no matter how much discussion it fosters.
Stay with me.
Democracy and “good” decision-making requires disagreement
The best example of the need for disagreement was best exemplified by Alfred Sloan, chairman of General Motors, who once interrupted a committee meeting with a query:
“Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here.”
Everyone around the table nodded in assent.
“Then,” continued Mr. Sloan, “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is all about.”
Sloan was anything but an “intuitive” decision-maker. He always emphasized the need to test opinions against facts and ensure that one did not start with the conclusion and then look for the facts that would support it. He knew that the right decision demands adequate disagreement.
In decision-making, beware of framed thinking
In any group discussion, one should automatically assume that everyone has framed the problem and solution (innocently enough) from their perspective.
In a corporate setting, for example, one could assume that the marketing group will view the solution through the lens of advertising and promotion, the sales group will see the problem and solution through added promotions and support programs, and the manufacturing factions will view the solution from the perspective of products and product development, and so on.
The same holds true in a democratic public election. Everyone will see things from their vantage point. City folks will see things differently than country folks, wealthy people from the less wealthy, men from women, one ethnicity from another, with divisions within divisions ad infinitum.
Whether the decision is made in a corporate boardroom or public forum, disagreement is a sign of thinking and the freedom to do so. The discussion must be argued, reasoned, documented and thought through, encouraging opinions, views, and alternatives.
Democracy means a right to hold any opinion.
If a “good” corporate decision begins with different opinions, the same principle applies to a democratic election. Different opinions should be welcomed—the moment they’re not, we no longer respect freedom of speech and the right to our opinion—whatever that opinion might be.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
People with abhorrent views must be entitled to the same rights as anyone else – that doesn’t mean they can inflict ill will on others – but the right to their opinion must be respected.
Calling someone a Nazi, racist or misogynist doesn’t make us morally superior.
Democracy – Why it’s NOT for children
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find people who respect democracy and its foundational principles.
In recent elections, everywhere you turn, you’ll see self-appointed judges weaponizing their temper tantrums at the “enemy” because “their side” lost. They refuse to accept the democratic outcome. They vow non-cooperation as if wrapping themselves in a cloak of indignation and outrage gives them some moral superiority and justification for childish behaviour.
I’m reminded of playing games with my niece many years ago; she never lost. She had a foolproof method; whenever she was in a disadvantaged position, she changed the rules to gain the upper hand. That was excusable … she was four.
By all accounts, vast numbers of voters haven’t matured beyond the mental state of a four-year-old. They feel entitled to their indignant wrath and non-cooperation if their party doesn’t win.
Like children, we love “democracy” as long as we get our way.
The high price of democracy – abiding by the decision
If the group decision (public election) was founded on proper principles and structure, everyone was encouraged to offer their ideas. It means there was a spirited discussion around various opinions and alternatives. However, once a group decision is made, everyone is obligated to abide by the outcome.
Mature, rational adults know that no two people can see the world exactly the same. Varying opinions are inevitable, which means that the final result of any democratic decision will leave some less satisfied than others … that’s the price you pay for having a voice in a democratic process.
The 2024 U.S. election
The people have spoken; they’ve made their choice. The Republican party has won their right to govern fair and square. To deny them that right is to snub democracy and all that it stands for.
Once a decision has been made, it is everyone’s job to support it, to work together for the common good, and to accept—like a rational adult—that you can’t always have your way.
If we can’t accept that, we need a timeout. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what the hell democracy actually is. If we can’t abide by the people’s will, we’re not intellectually mature enough for a democratic society; clearly, our thinking is more in line with that of a 4-year-old.
If your party loses, take heart; another choice will be made in four years. Looking back on the last 200+ years, the pendulum has swung back and forth with metronomic regularity. When voters no longer like the incumbent government, they will make a new choice in the next election.
Democracy – Don’t underestimate its fragility
As Ronald Reagan warned in his January 5th, 1967 inaugural address:
Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
I’ve often wondered if they will answer those who subscribe to that philosophy: if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.” This was written in 1748, and it’s as true today as it was then.
Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid. With all the profound wording of our federal Constitution, probably the most meaningful words are the first three, “We, the People.”
If this is a dream, it’s a good dream, and it’s worthy of our generation and is worth passing on to the next.
In a democracy, the voting public is never wrong.
The energies and talents of all of us are needed to meet the many challenges we face. Let’s be sure we give our children the chance to make a decision, to vote in an election, and to determine their destiny.
If we can’t put our childish tantrums aside and accept that in a democratic process, things don’t always go our way, then, like children, we will be told what to do – that means sooner or later, we’ll get a government that will tell us what to do and how to think.
