The best way to fix a democracy
Surveys tell us that people around the world are not too enthusiastic about democracies, but few want to change to a different form of government. The change voters do want? Better politicians who listen to constituents and act ethically.
Surveys tell us that people around the world are not too enthusiastic about democracies, but few want to change to a different form of government. The change voters do want? Better politicians who listen to constituents and act ethically.
A woman in Australia, it turns out, knows exactly what is needed to fix democracy. "There should be longer terms of government to promote longer-term vision," she told a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. That makes sense. People need time to make big changes.
But wait. A man in the United States is equally sure that he, too, knows exactly what is needed to fix democracy. "I believe term limits on senators and representatives in government would greatly improve our process of democracy. Career politicians must end," he told the survey.
OK, so maybe that's not it. Maybe the solution is somewhere else. Maybe the way to better-functioning democracies is fewer parties. "We need fewer parties, less fragmentation, and more concrete debate," a woman in the Netherlands told the survey. That sounds logical enough.
Alas, no. At least for a man in Spain, what democracy needs is more parties. "There is too much pressure on having two big parties compete with each other. It should be open to more parties," he said.
Survey after survey tells us that people around the world are currently not too enthusiastic about democracies. Very few want to change to a different form of government, Pew finds. But they really would like their democracy to function a little better, please.
No. 1 on most people's lists: better politicians who listen to voters and act ethically.
Is that really too much to ask?
No one solution could possibly address the diversity of the world's many democracies. The Netherlands does not face the same challenges as Nigeria, for instance. But the Pew survey, with all its intriguing prescriptions, does bring something universal to light. Every answer is a finger pointed somewhere else – at this institution or those people or that law.
When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the last day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he said an interesting thing. Someone from the crowd asked if the convention had settled on a monarchy or a republic. "A republic," he answered, "if you can keep it."
Surely, that was a collective "you" – speaking to the people arrayed in front of him and those across the new country. But he could just as easily have been speaking to each individual. The job of maintaining and improving a democratic republic is collective but also individual. A democracy properly reflects its people. So for a democracy to improve, its people must improve. There is no other way.
If we would have our democracies listen better, we must listen better. If we would have our democracies be more responsible, we must be more responsible. If we would have our democracies respect our rights, we must respect the rights of others.
This is both the genius and the peril of democracy. It makes no claim to be anything other than what its people make it, and is therefore a mirror of the nation itself. And that means, in many cases, the very best way to improve a democracy is to improve oneself.