The ‘one person, one vote’ principle in Western democracies is being questioned

Western-style democracies accept the dogma that governments can be best or most justly governed when each citizen has an equal say in who should govern—the principle of “one person, one vote.” For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “the concept of political equality, from the Declaration of Independence to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments, can mean only one thing: one person, one vote.” This dogma is misleading.

To begin, I would like to make it clear that the purpose of this short piece is not to present a coherent upgrade of the current Western democratic system. Instead, it should be seen as a wake-up call that questions the deeply held belief that the democratic system of one person, one vote is the best we can hope for.

We must be able to ask this question critically. However, in Western-style democracies, it is considered problematic to publicly question the validity of the electoral process and the one person, one vote principle. Westerners ignore or despise arguments that would expose this electoral system as fundamentally flawed. I experienced this disdain after reading the article ‘Chinese capillary democracy: what can Western democracies learn from it?’ published. in March 2016.

Rethinking our own systems does not mean imitating authoritarian regimes

In the article I argued that Western democracies could be strengthened by changing the way their political leaders were elected and by adopting a system that would result in more professional, meritocratic, and stable governments. This new system could be partially modeled on the one the Chinese have, although largely they only have it in theory. At no point did I suggest that the Chinese government itself is a fit for Western countries or that China has a true democracy.

Instead, I used the theoretical structure of Chinese local elections as an example. At the local level, one person and one vote could work, and promotions to higher levels could come from local democracy. This is not how China actually works. Without a doubt, China is an authoritarian regime that is turning into an autocracy under President Xi Jinping.

My article received numerous sarcastic comments, such as: “Mr. Meyer sold his soul to the (Chinese Communist Party) on Alibaba.” ‘This is such a nonsense article. The (People’s Republic of China) is a mafia state,” and “What a naive, narrow-minded, simplistic and ignorant piece of propaganda.” Numerous rigid beliefs and prejudices continue to hinder any attempt to initiate a constructive conversation with supporters of Western democracy.

Majoritarianism is wishful thinking

I agree that we should all be active members of society and participate in the country’s decision-making process. No matter how extensive our individual knowledge and skills, they will always represent only a small part of what is needed to evaluate complex domestic and international issues. Assessing the issues at stake – such as how to manage globalization and climate change, how to deal with China and Russia, whether or not to bomb Iran – is far beyond the analytical reach of any separate individual, including those with relevant expertise. . This applies as much to deciding who are the most capable leaders as it does to deciding which policies are best.

When we are sick, we go to the doctor. If we want to build a bridge, we go to an engineer. If we want to invest, we go to an economist. If we want to find a cure for cancer, we go to scientists. They are all experts. It is also interesting to note that no successful private company is run like a democracy. Companies are led by teams of experts in the different areas that concern them. Yet governing a country is far more complex than any scientific endeavor or multinational effort. Clearly, there is little point in letting the general population decide how it should be done.

In short, a vote is the expression of a personal opinion and to be meaningful it must meet three preliminary conditions: gathering sufficient information on the subject in question, having the necessary background information and skills to analyze the information collected , and spending enough time voting. analyzing the information to ultimately draw good conclusions. Only after these three requirements are met can the individual form an opinion and, if desired, share it for the benefit of the community in the form of a vote. An ordinary citizen is busy working to earn his livelihood and take care of his family and personal interests. This citizen cannot be expected to be able to have a good understanding of all the necessary geopolitical, economic, social, military, historical or legal dimensions to develop sound opinions on which to base his voting choices.

Hoping that a numerical majority of vastly uninformed individuals in a country will make brilliant choices on extremely complex issues is simply an illusion. Or a delusion. Our inability is illustrated by the fact that even individuals with extensive relevant expertise are unable to reach consensus on the best options in domestic and international affairs. Individual experts often disagree, contradict each other and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Once the issues go beyond what individuals can sufficiently understand and relate to, the democratic voting system is ineffective and therefore popular voting to elect a country’s leadership is fundamentally flawed.

An editor at Fair Observer raised the objection that although experts may know better than voters, they should not make decisions for them because experts can advise and inform elected leaders without overruling them. I don’t believe this holds water. Ultimately, the experts or voters should have the final say. When voters have the final say, there is nothing stopping their elected leaders from engaging in ill-advised wars, pursuing irrational economic policies, or ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change. We have all seen these things happen since time immemorial. As long as one person and one vote remains the rule, popular policy will override sound policy; experts be damned.

There is more than one way to do democracy

All this does not mean that people should not participate in the political life of a country. On the contrary, it should happen, but it should happen in an area where an individual is able to make informed, intuitive, critical decisions. For example, individuals can adequately assess issues affecting their local community and make informed choices in the elections for their local representatives.

These representatives, elected by popular vote, would become part of the foundations of the national governance structure. This structure would mainly consist of teams of professionals who aspire to long-term employment with the government. Promotions within this government would be based on a combination of performance (meritocracy) and internal elections. Ultimately, governing a country should be a long-term professional obligation, not a temporary personal ambition.

It is an illusion to count on the magical power of a numerical majority of fundamentally unqualified individuals to correctly choose the most suitable candidates to lead our nations through complex domestic and international issues. The West must take an honest and critical look at its outdated democratic system and fundamentally redesign it to make it effective in overcoming the challenges posed by the complex world we live in.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Fair Observer.