What democracy actually does

Opinions about the best way forward can fracture a country in countless ways. Democracy, at its most fundamental level, is about creating a structure that can absorb those disagreements without violence or tyranny.

R. Norman Matheny/The Christian Science Monitor/File
The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

We’re all inspired by the highest ideals of democracy. Abraham Lincoln’s vow that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” kindles no small spark of pride. After all, the best of democracy often points to the best of us – the commitment to freedom, to justice, to responsibility, all wielded to form a sense of unity across race, class, and creed.

But how do we think about our governments when they fall short of this ideal? The higher ideal encourages us upward. But can it also feed our frustrations – making us feel that things are broken beyond repair or, perhaps, much worse than they actually are?

Not too long ago, the Monitor’s Jessica Mendoza analyzed the way Americans were talking about their government. And it wasn’t good. Increasingly, they were talking with a palpable sense of doom. To listen to much of the rhetoric, elections are not about setting a new course for the country, but saving it from imminent ruin. “What we’ve seen since the turn of the century is the mainstreaming of apocalyptic rhetoric,” one political scientist told Jessica.

The rhetoric has had an effect. Polls show that American politics is characterized by two voting groups that increasingly see the other as an existential threat. But that rhetoric is built on false views of what democracy really does. Politicians are essentially saying: “Thank goodness for democracy! You can vote for me, and I’ll make sure we get everything we want and the other half of the country which disagrees with us will get nothing.”

Democracies are actually really bad at that. When a country is divided, a democracy will be messy, by design. Democracies encourage common purpose and are healthier when it is present, yet they have no ability to enforce it. Quite the opposite. The purpose of a democracy is to maintain law and order while the people themselves figure out how to get along.

And that, in many ways, is the most underappreciated quality of a democracy. Opinions about the best way forward can fracture a country in countless ways. Democracy, at its most fundamental level, is about creating a structure that can absorb those disagreements without violence or tyranny. 

So the essential purpose of a democracy, argues political scientist John Mueller, is giving people the freedom to complain. When people have the freedom to complain – to agitate, to protest – even the most imperfect democratic governments almost always correct course to some degree, he notes. 

Put in somewhat loftier language, we can say that the government that works best is the government that best defends individual freedom of conscience. That gives us a very different measuring stick for democracy, notes Steven Pinker in this book “Enlightenment Now.” Democracy really has only two core tasks: protect people from chaotic violence and protect people’s right to complain. 

In a world made up of millions of hopes and opinions, you might say, the highest ideal of government is creating the conditions to best help all its people strive for their highest ideals.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What democracy actually does
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today