Thoughts on Democracy

 As someone who lives and breathes sci-fi, I spend a lot of time thinking about political theory; how would you run a Galactic Empire? What would a utopian Federation actually look like? How would you explain democracy to someone from, say, Westeros, or Katolis, or Pharaonic Egypt, or Sengoku-era Japan? I think I've come to realize something about democracy.

Democracy is like a table, built to stand on four legs: Education, a Free Media, Infrastructure, and the Rule of Law. Without one of those legs, the table wobbles. Without two, it will collapse.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if you have those four pillars, a society will tend toward democracy inevitably. If the population is educated, well-informed, organized, and able to trust in some form of justice, they will demand an equal voice. This is why attempts to "establish" or "declare" a democracy always collapse: you can't just install a beloved leader from among the populace and walk away; the whole government will eventually collapse (leading to the rise of a demagogue).

When it comes right down to it, a democracy is actually the ultimate evolution of a monarchy: one in which the entire population is effectively royalty. "Voter" is just another word for the nobility, because that's what nobles do; they alone get a vote on what the king actually does (and will enforce it at knife-point, if necessary). Democracy is just the idea that "nobleman," "citizen," and "person" should all mean the same thing.

Democracy takes the political authority of the king and distributes it among the entire voting class --or rather it raises the entire population into the noble class; in terms of birth status, any citizen could potentially become the new leader (for a time). Of course, the "leader" in a democracy (whether you call them President, First Minister, Chancellor, or Administrator) is not a "ruler," but simply the noble that the other nobles nominate to take care of administrative duties.

(I'm using masculine terminology here for simplicity because, historically and fictionally, most monarchies are also patriarchies. Once the path to power exists, it can and will be widened to include others, but the path itself to start somewhere.)

Think for a moment about what power actually means in a monarchy.

Education:
Kings don't spontaneously appear. Every good king (and many of the bad ones) started out as a prince. A wise king will make absolutely certain that his prospective crown prince is well-educated. A good king will summon only the finest teachers, tutors, and instructors, both from his own kingdom and abroad.

This isn't just knowing one's letters and numbers; in addition to reading, writing, and doing at least basic calculations, a good king must know history, philosophy, logistics, basic science, and what was once called statecraft (rhetoric, economics, diplomacy, political theory, military strategy and tactics, etc). He must intimately know the culture and traditions of his people as well as those of his neighbour nations, and must understand respect the importance of any ceremonies or rituals he is expected to participate in.

In a functioning democracy, this same education must be provided to every voter. Supporting this educational system should be one of the primary functions of a government, specifically because it directly contributes to the stability, effectiveness, and health of the entire nation.

The Free Media:
Even after ascending the throne, a king must be well-informed. A good king sends out explorers and emissaries to far off lands (and welcomes them in return), and employs trusted advisors, informants, and even spies (if necessary) among his own people. The information the king receives must be timely, accurate, and detailed. Without this, no king can make good decisions --when kings lack information, nations fall. (Accepting this possibly-unpleasant information is another important lesson that princes need to be taught: denying the truth betrays yourself and your kingdom.)

In a democracy, this role is filled by the news media: without knowing what's going on in the world around them, voters cannot make responsible decisions. Keeping the press free and unbiased (and readily available to all citizens) is another thing the government needs to prioritize. This includes monitoring elected officials --threats can come from other trusted nobles just as easily as from outside invaders.

Infrastructure:
A king can only rule over what he can reach --princes need to master logistics as well. It takes time for information, resources, and people to travel from place to place, and the larger and more geographically complicated a kingdom, the harder it is for a central authority to manage. In pre-industrial times (which we tend to think of when we think of monarchies), roads, harbours, storehouses, military and trading outposts, and waystations (where messengers could change horses and get a meal and a night's shelter) were vitally important.

A modern society faces different logistical challenges, but infrastructure is still vital, especially in a democracy. This includes informational and communication infrastructure; votes must be collected and tabulated, and the outcome of any election must be made known to all corners of the nation before anything else can be done. This also means that someone needs to keep track of exactly how many citizens there are at any given time (i.e., how many votes can possibly be cast), and where they all are (to ensure that they are physically able to reach a polling place) --you can't have an election until you have a census, and you can't have a census without an organized administration.

Independent Courts:
The Court is perhaps the greatest difference; in a monarchy, the "Supreme Court" was literally the King's Court, with the king on his throne serving as both legislator and judge, able to make, interpret, and abolish laws essentially on a whim (which is why the nobility cluster around the king, to influence his judgement on what should and shouldn't be legal --to belabour the point about logistics; a noble who is not near the king is no noble at all). Subordinate magistrates and judges were chosen by the king and spoke with his authority --it was not their judgement that was valued, but their ability to echo the king's opinions.

This is where religion comes into government, with the will of God(s) essentially representing a moral authority that even the king cannot influence (of course, organized religion is itself just a headless monarchy, as the supreme authority cannot be directly interacted with, and there is no guarantee that even the most pious priests are not simply acting on their own).

Since a democracy has no king to serve as final judge, it must instead have some kind of objective authority --a set of laws or principles that apply equally to all citizens (who, remember, are nobility), and even the leader (who is, after all, no more or less noble than any other citizen). The guardians and enforcers of this authority --the Supreme Court and its associated agencies-- must be kept impartial, meaning that their appointment and removal must be outside the hands of the government that they are called to monitor. This is exactly the sort of thing citizens themselves should be voting for.

We like to say that there's a price to be paid to live in a "Free Country," an idea often used to justify military adventurism and increasingly militarized law enforcement, but none of that actually protects or contributes to democracy. All it does --at best-- is to defend the physical borders of the state; it has nothing to do with what goes on in the state.

The price is this:
A citizen in a democracy must be educated.
A citizen in a democracy must be well-informed.
A citizen in a democracy must have access to social infrastructure (i.e., the physical ability to vote).
A citizen in a democracy must be protected by the law.

You'll notice that none of these "prices" are paid by the citizen; they are the responsibility of the state, if it wants to defend its own survival.

###

What we're seeing right now in the USA is the result of a deliberate, generations-long attack on these four pillars, and thus on the idea of democracy itself.

The "billionaire donors" are, by any description, the nobility of America, and they are trying to install a monarchy that they alone will have full control of. In order to do that, they have to shrink the voting class until it includes only them. By defunding public education, eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, disenfranchising voters, and subverting the Supreme Court, they have removed the tools that citizens need in order to participate in democracy, and thus turned those citizens into something else.

So what do you call someone who doesn't get access to education, knowing only superstition and folk wisdom? Who lacks accurate and detailed information and must rely on rumour and hearsay? Who lives in inaccessible or unsafe places far removed from the seat of power? Who has to fear arbitrary laws wielded by those who are openly above them?

In a monarchy, those are "commoners," not citizens.