can democracy be sustained?

--------------------

In light of the increasing complexity and specialization of law and politics, is government “of the people, for the people, and by the people” an institutional fiction or is it truly viable despite signs of democratic apathy?

The principle of self-determination carries both rights and responsibilities. While governments and public officials must take responsibility for helping to create a culture of cynicism and apathy, individuals must also take seriously their role in the political process. A strong democracy requires education and full participation of the citizen body. It has been said that the problem with democracy is that it merely counts votes instead of weighing them. While the aphorism may be brushed off as paternalistic or elitist, it also highlights a systemic problem. The solution to the failures of the political system cannot simply be “more democracy”, but “better democracy”, in the sense that participants should be accorded “more” rights while themselves being held accountable for their responsibilities as citizens. A power imbalance will continue to exist between the governed and the governors, despite whatever institutional safeguards are in place, if ordinary citizens are not active and educated participants.

The irony is that the impetus may have to be provided by the government itself. Government can cement its legitimacy as an institution “for the people, of the people, and by the people” by enacting changes to the participatory criteria in the democratic process, specifically by requiring voter eligibility to be a function of social, cultural, and political education and involvement. What this means is not that those who spend the most or have the most visible platform or have the most powerful lobby will be the ones who direct the course of politics, but those citizens who demonstrate a substantial contribution to the social and democratic life of the community will be accorded a more persuasive voice.

We have already seen that the recognition of legal personhood is a political designation: the definition of “citizen” has developed in our society’s history to accommodate changes in the conceptions of equality and democracy. What we are proposing here is no different and would be arguably as progressive in its effects as the aforementioned decisions. It would solve the problem of voter apathy by placing the responsibility on the individual to be informed of and active in the social and political sphere if they truly want their vote to count. Politicians will be forced to discuss public policy in substantive ways rather than relying on spin and rhetoric if they want to garner weighted votes of a more critical and informed electorate. Democratic debate would be stimulated amongst the public because there would be a greater need for information and thought-provoking commentary. While universal suffrage is a democratic right, it may be that we also need to rethink our ideas about citizenship in light of the cultural and political realities of our times. If we truly believe that democracy is the best political model, then we must be prepared to save it even if it means considering ideas that would challenge the status quo.

Disenfranchisement can be solved by requiring citizen involvement in the public sphere as a prerequisite for democratic participation, and by providing the avenues for this type of involvement by making the political and judicial processes more accessible to the public. We can remove the apathetic voter’s excuse that “one vote doesn’t really matter” by giving him/her the responsibility and the choice of how to make it count and by how much. We already employ a similar type of discretion in our immigration policies by requiring those who want to enjoy the benefits of living in Canada to possess certain qualities and capacities to ensure they will be contributing members of society. Would it be that much of a stretch in principle to set standards for those who wish to participate in our democracy?

--------------------