Democracy and Compromise

Democracy is difficult. I think it's telling that, as much as so many people claim to value democracy, there is not a truly democratic country in the world. Every country we think of as a democracy is really some form of representational republic. There are very good reasons for this; the public is not very well-informed and, ironically, the very rights that are necessary for democracy need to be protected from the very people those rights are protecting.

As such, current democratic governments embody a compromise between the ideal of self-determination and the realities of human nature. Ideally, they also embody compromises between all a nation's citizens. But certain things, such as human rights, cannot be compromised. A country cannot call itself a democracy if it does not support the liberty and equality of all its citizens.

This presents somewhat of a paradox. In a modern-day democracy, where do we set the line of what issues are open to compromise? Human rights themselves are open to debate. Do we have a right to universal healthcare? We could even ask, "What are human rights?" Are they natural things that everyone should possess and are sometimes wrongfully denied to us, or are they human constructs and as such the rights we have are merely the rights we have chosen to give each other? That's a longstanding philosophical debate. (For the record, I favor the second view as, somewhat controversially, I view it as the more optimistic approach. If we want universal healthcare to be a right, all we have to do is say, sure, it's a right.)

It does not help that our political, economic, and religious rights often butt heads with one another. When one right conflicts with another right, once again, compromise is needed. However different people prioritize their different rights differently, and so they disagree how these compromises should occur, if at all. As I've argued before, our rights to liberty, equality, and security are in constant conflict with one another.

Therefore compromise is the key to a functioning democracy. People of ideologically pure views, I would argue, have a right to their opinion, but it should be recognized that they, despite whatever they may say, do not support democracy. Take economics, for instance. Many Americans are capitalists and a growing number of Americans are socialists. This is a perfect example of the conflict between economic liberty and economic equality. (Do not make the oversimplification of thinking that capitalists believe in liberty and socialists believe in equality; both groups believe both rights are important, but they do prioritize them differently and have different views of how these things may be achieved.) However, the actual economy of a democratic nation should never entirely mirror one view or the other. As long as there are significant portions of the population who are capitalists and socialists, the economy should represent a compromise between the two. Those who are not willing to make that compromise do not support democracy.

Because, I believe, democracy itself is the ideology of compromise. It's the radical idea that, no matter what else we believe, the decisions a government makes should be an amalgam of all its citizen's views, even if we disagree with that decision. It's a commitment to moral and epistemic (inter)subjectivity. Democracy is the system of government of the skeptic. This, understandably, makes many people uncomfortable who have more absolute views about the world. I believe it's a large reason why so many people actually support authoritarian governments and politicians. As long as your views align with those of the people in power, why support democracy and compromise those views?

This is why I preach skepticism (itself an ideology, I admit). Unless those in power have moral and epistemic doubt, they have no reason to compromise with the less powerful. Yet one only needs to look at the history of the world to see how misplaced that confidence is. The closer a country approaches actual democracy - the more secure, free, and equal its citizens are; the more compromises that are made - the more prosperous and happy those citizens are. If those are outcomes we desire for ourselves, we must be willing to make compromises even when things are going our way politically.

Unless, of course, those compromises threaten democracy itself. The real danger to democracy is the ease with which its enemies can co-opt its principles. The freedom of speech can be used to espouse antidemocratic views or silence the voices of the less powerful. The right of assembly can be used to dehumanize groups of citizens and intimidate them. It is important to recognize that democratic rights cannot be used to justify antidemocratic actions. Doing so may produce a false equivalency in the eyes of the public. Those who defend the rights of people to destroy democracy are either ignorant fools or acting in bad faith.

But these are all judgement calls and there are no lines set in stone. It is incumbent on everyone to make their own decisions. Another reason I'm a skeptic is that I believe its very empowering to say that there is no one who can tell me right from wrong, that is a determination I have to make for myself, yet also very humbling that I have to recognize everyone else's power to do the same. In a similar manner, a proper democracy empowers yet humbles its citizens. But with that power comes great responsibility. I just have to trust that you'll use yours well.