Elections Do Not Equal Democracy

It is a common perception that as long as a country has free elections to choose its leaders, then it is a free and democratic state, i.e., a liberal democracy. While this obviously depends in part on one's definition of "democracy", the truth is that a country can have superficially free elections and yet be not remotely democratic in the sense that most people understand it. In its most basic definition, democracy means rule by the people; in other words, the government acts in accordance with the will of the majority of the populace, with the will of the people expressed through elections, sometimes in the form of referendums but more often through the election of representatives. In modern times, we usually add a corollary to the definition of a liberal democracy that the rights of the minority should be respected, so the decisions of the majority cannot be grossly unjust to the minority. Unfortunately, this important component of democracy is not always respected, as can be seen in countries where there are sharp ethnic divisions and the larger ethnic group uses its electoral strength to oppress the minority. But even where this is not a major issue, simply holding elections, even ones that are free of blatant ballot-stuffing, vote buying, intimidation, or other problems, is not sufficient to make a country a truly free and democratic state in which the government acts for the benefit of all.

In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Court has recently opened the gates to unlimited political spending by the wealthy. The conservative majority asserted that restrictions on election spending were restrictions on free speech; in other words, they claim that in politics, money equals speech. This, however, is completely ludicrous. By allowing the wealthiest individuals – and when it comes to those who are able to take advantage of this ruling, we are talking about perhaps a few hundred people out of a population of several hundred million – to spend without restriction on elections (I am aware that for now limits on direct contributions to individual candidates remain in place, but with Citizens United and the recent ruling, there are no longer any limits on either indirect spending and overall contributions, which effectively allows these few people to spend as much as they want), it in effect ensures that while everyone has an equal right to free speech, a few people are, in the words of George Orwell, more equal than others. While the Koch brothers and I may all have opinions on an issue like health care reform or climate change, they can spend millions of dollars to broadcast their opinions, even adding misleading or outright false information to make them more credible, while I cannot. Restricting them from doing so does not infringe on their right to free speech, but allowing them to do so infringes on mine, and that of every other person who doesn't have their wealth. Imagine a modern equivalent to a small, ancient Greek polis with a public square in which any citizen can get up on a podium to express their opinion on a political issue. Then imagine that the wealthiest citizen is able to buy a loudspeaker, effectively drowning out anyone who cannot afford to do the same. If loudspeakers were banned, this would not prevent the wealth person from exercising right to their free speech, but it would allow everyone else an equal right to be heard.

So what does this ruling mean for elections and democracy? For one thing, it leads to situations like the recent flocking of potential Republican candidates for president to kowtow to right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson. While he may only have one vote in the election itself, he has millions of dollars that he can (and based on his past record will) spend to support the candidates of his choice. That being the case, are the candidates who have any hope of getting that money going to listen to the opinions of the average voter over Adelson's? Not likely. In theory, of course, the majority can still vote for candidates who favor the interests of the average person over those of the rich and powerful. But this is assumes, first of all, that there are any such candidates. Given the importance of money to today's election campaigns, this is hardly a given. But more importantly, it is a regrettable truth that people are easily swayed by misleading information. If billionaires like Adelson and the Kochs blanket the airwaves with ads attacking some candidates and supporting others, this can easily change the results of the election. When it comes down to it, elections in a country where there is no restriction on election spending may be free, but in a very real sense they can no longer be said to be truly fair. The wealthy ended up dominating the political system, effectively creating an oligarchy, leaving only a facade of democracy, despite the regular elections. While the US may not yet be at this point, if the power of money remains unchecked, the result will be a "democracy" much like the one ruled by lizards that Douglas Adams once described.

Taiwan's recent situation illustrates another problem with treating elections as the be all and end all of democracy. When the ruling KMT was faced with protests against its attempt to push through the service trade agreement with China, some of its members asserted that since they had won the elections and controlled the government, they had the right to pass the agreement regardless of protests. But simply because a government has been elected by the people does not mean it can do as it pleases, nor is a citizen's only duty in a democracy to vote in elections. Between elections, citizens have not only the right but the duty to monitor their elected officials, and if the latter do something that is egregiously harmful to the peoples' interests, they should rise up in protest and do what they can to stop them. When President Ma Ying-jeou and the current batch of KMT legislators ran in the most recent election, they didn't state as part of their political platforms that they were going to negotiate and pass an agreement with China that would be disadvantageous to many Taiwanese and would even present a threat to Taiwan's continued independence. It follows that even Taiwanese who may have voted for them have every right to take strong measures to prevent the passage of such an agreement, since by the next election it may be too late.

To have a true liberal democracy, it is necessary to have voters who are well educated on political issues, severe restrictions on the power of money to influence elections, and a strong civil society to monitor the government and ensure that it acts in the interests of all. Simply having elections is not enough.