Democracy Without the Halo

Political rhetoric alternates between declaring the majority’s choice the highest wisdom and reducing elections to a meaningless spectacle. Democracy does not guarantee a sensible decision; above all it creates a way to distribute and change power without a compulsory civil war.

Voting does not turn a majority into specialists. Voters know candidates through advertising, journalism, party messaging and their own prejudices. Money, media access, electoral rules and the drawing of districts all affect the result.

A politician can win thanks to a programme, charisma, fear of the rival, a well-timed crisis, or the fact that his surname came first on the ballot. The will of the people looks somewhat less metaphysical after that.

But the imperfection of elections does not mean the result is always fixed in advance or that all alternatives are equal.

Political regimes differ on features that matter:

• whether those in power can be replaced;
• whether the courts are independent;
• whether an opposition is allowed;
• whether the media are free;
• whether minorities are protected;
• whether organisations can be founded;
• whether officials are accountable;
• how hard it is to change the rules in the rulers’ favour.

Democracy does not work through voting alone. It requires institutions that constrain the winner and let the losers keep their rights and try again.

Taking part in elections is not a moral duty under all circumstances. Sometimes the choice really is poor, the procedure is unfair, and a single vote has almost no effect on the outcome.

But refusing to take part is also a decision with consequences. It does not remove a person from the system. Taxes, laws and government decisions will keep working regardless of how clean his distance is.

The rational question is not “is this a real democracy?” but:

Which mechanisms of influence actually exist here, and which of them are worth the cost?

Sometimes it is voting. Sometimes a professional association, a court, journalism, a local initiative or a public campaign.

Politics likes to force a person to choose between naive faith and complete cynicism. Both states suit whoever already holds power.

Mechanisms of influence are usually duller than elections and work better. A courtyard about to be built over is more often saved not by a vote three years from now but by the fact that somebody read the notice of a public hearing, found out the deadline for objections and managed to collect signatures before it passed. That costs a few evenings and knowledge of one procedure. A vote at an election costs less and has proportionate effect; the notice of the hearing hangs on the entrance door and is usually read by nobody.

Hence a regularity: the closer a decision is to home, the cheaper it is to influence and the fewer people want to. People who are sure that nothing depends on them have usually tested this at the level of the country and never once at the level of the residents’ meeting.