accountability again

Your views

I confess that writing a column daily takes more energy than I anticipated. I am mindful of writing something relevant to the column’s theme—actions and consequences—out of respect for your time and commitment to read it. I am also keenly aware that what entrances me some days may be boring as all get out to you. Threading that needle between the two broad topics is a challenge today.

I will commit today to encouraging you to consider a rebuttal following yesterday’s column on long-term predictability effects (that’s a mouthful) of non-democracy in Thailand and Niger. This thoughtful argument is precisely why I write to expand our discourse.

Let me state two assumptions from which I start. One, democracy is an instrument rather than an end because I don’t think we ever achieve a perfect democracy. Two, people are imperfect so they struggle with the precepts of governing. Three, things go better, however, when they are a participant in determining policies regarding how they are governed.

You’ll recall I wrote yesterday that we see consequences of the leaders of Niger and Thailand opposing democratic practices because the lack of public accountability makes each choice more likely an individualist one. For our foreign policy, this makes commitments hard in an era when we strive to establish long-term relationships with these states (I did not, of course comment on whether that is a good aspiration but it most definitely is our current policy).

Last night’s rebuttal reads:

‘I disagree.

Openness and accountability are indeed potential outcomes of democracy, but I'm not convinced they are guaranteed or that they necessarily drive constituents to expect or request democracy as a form of government. 

Many of the founding documents explicitly challenge the concept of a true or absolute democracy. Instead characterizing the needs of society to be met by 'informed citizens' or more perhaps more accurately, educated 'elites' . Those who know better. 

While we can certainly talk about how the republic that is the United States as evolved and flirted with absolute or true democracy (Senators now directly elected, increasing use of legislative referendums, state judge elections), I don't think it is accurate to generalize that Joe Q. Public in any given country around the world expects or desires to participate in absolute democracy.

My counterpoint anecdote. 
Democracy is chaos. Deliberations are slow, mind-bending, and frequently ineffective to the point of seemingly progressing backwards. 
It can be easy to say, yes, that is what people want. But that's like saying people want a colonoscopy. Yes, they don't want cancer. But given the choice they would certainly prefer to avoid cancer by means other than a colonoscopy. 

Democracy today is particularly hard. With the information flood. The 'direct to constituent' demands on ferreting out ground truth. The psychological traps and biases pulling informed citizens a thousand directions. It's overwhelming. And many are just fine with just enough democracy. Just enough economic stability and opportunity. Just enough personal and public safety. Just enough environmental preservation and stewardship.

We can say trends away from direct constituent choice in government is anti-democratic. But that doesn't necessarily mean constituents are oppressed or even uncomfortable with their form of government. It might in fact be what they prefer. And are choosing through a choice of inaction.

I'll caveat this with certainly unbalanced opportunity or complete disregard for a class of citizens will always be pushed back on. But honestly does democracy guarantee equality and a common set of behavioral values? {emphasis added} I think there is plenty of direct evidence to the contrary.’

—an ACC reader

Everyone knows that a panoply of interpretations, concerns, and fears surround the idea of democracy as noted above; this has been true since Aristotle’s era. I do not in any way dispute his comments on that portion.

My question, a most sincere one, to all of you is whether those of us concerned about threats to democratic institutions are overblown? This question is not merely one about the current candidates for the White House but one about changing norms around the world.

Specialists in a field tend to run around as chickens with their heads cut off about developments relevant to changes affecting their lives and their manalyses. This rebuttal raises a fundamentally different set of long-term assumptions and challenges; it asks directly whether ‘democracy guarantees equality and a common set of behavioural values?’ (third paragraph above that I rather than the author highlighted)

I don’t believe absolute equality is achievable, sadly, but I do believe in as wide an aperture as possible for people to strive. I understand that creates some awkward contradictions in my own beliefs sometimes but this entire discussion allows us to return to the heart of what we profess to be one of our interests: spreading our values and specifically a preference in democracy around the globe. Or is that merely a cover for our actions because we think it sounds better?

I genuinely welcome your thoughts of any sort on this point. Fire away as it’s one of the most important aspects of the current election cycle we will hear about in the next 231 days. Please take the opportunity to respond as you see fit…or not but we are all welcome to comment.

Thank you for considering this on the first day of spring. It’s quite windy on the Chesapeake but the sun is bright and we saw a small garter snake yesterday afternoon on our constitutional. Things are reviving as the warmth and longer days return.

Actions create consequences.

Be well and be safe. FIN