Democracy has been a frequent topic in recent discourse. Its etymology traces back to the Greek dēmokratia, meaning “popular government,” derived from dēmos (“common people” or “district”) and kratos (“rule, strength”). By the 16th century, democracy was understood as a system where sovereign power rested with the people, either exercised directly or through elected officials. In 19th-century England, it could also denote the common class, those without hereditary rank.
Democracy requires that individuals take responsibility for choosing their rulers and representatives, as well as for safeguarding their own rights against government overreach. As Ezra Pound wrote in ABC of Economics (1933), democracy assumes an engaged and vigilant populace.
Two guiding principles underpin democracy: first, participation—the shared role of individuals in governance; and second, rule by the collective people. Given that unanimity is rarely possible, democracy governs through majority rule, shifting the balance of power and persuasion toward the greater number.
The Electoral College: A Contradiction?
In the United States, this ideal is complicated by the Electoral College. Federalist No. 68, likely written by Alexander Hamilton, defended the system by arguing that it prevents unqualified individuals from ascending to power solely through “low intrigue” and “the little arts of popularity.” The Electoral College purportedly ensures that a candidate appeals broadly across the nation rather than catering exclusively to populous urban centers, thereby preventing a tyranny of the majority that might neglect less-densely populated areas.
However, critics argue that the system subverts direct democracy. The Electoral College prioritizes state-based representation over sheer population count, enabling a candidate to win the presidency without securing the most individual votes. Since 1800, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or abolish the system, yet none has successfully cleared the rigorous constitutional amendment process. The difficulty of amending the U.S. Constitution has stalled reform efforts.
This system results in a form of plurality rather than singularity, but governance has further drifted from its democratic roots. Rather than serving the broader public, modern government increasingly caters to its own interests, with policies favoring those in power rather than the well-being of the majority.
Supermajority Rules and Minority Obstruction
Parliamentary rules, such as the 60% filibuster threshold in the U.S. Senate, exemplify another layer of democratic dilution. In this instance, 41% of senators can block legislation, thwarting the majority’s will. This raises fundamental questions about whether democracy, in its current practice, truly reflects majority rule or has instead become a mechanism for entrenched interests.
Competing Political Philosophies
Governance ultimately hinges not only on electoral mechanics but also on competing political ideologies. The “liberal” perspective emphasizes cooperation and collective welfare, while the “conservative” approach often prioritizes hierarchy and tradition. In reality, governments tend to serve the interests of those elected, regardless of ideology. As long as elected officials act in ways that satisfy their constituents, objections remain limited. Thus, the burden falls upon voters to make informed choices.
Populism and the MAGA Movement
The MAGA movement in the U.S. is often characterized as a populist movement, championing the will of an underlying “base” of the electorate. However, its rhetoric frequently recalls an era when political power was concentrated among a select few, excluding women, people of color, non-Christians, and those deemed socially unacceptable. Defenders of the movement argue that no system can satisfy everyone, while critics contend that exclusionary politics amount to calculated supremacy.
When those in power act in ways that raise ethical and legal concerns, democracy itself falters. A government that claims to uphold the rule of law while its leaders are found criminally and civilly culpable undermines the legitimacy of its democratic foundations.
Democracy at a Crossroads
The American political system now stands at a critical juncture. It must decide whether to preserve its democratic principles or allow an evolving shift toward oligarchy or modern aristocracy, reminiscent of British colonial rule. Oligarchy thrives when global economic elites intertwine with political power, and the presence of the world’s wealthiest individuals wielding governmental influence underscores this risk.
Democracy was designed to protect rights against encroachment. Yet those rights can be abused regardless of the origin of power. The goal of democracy is not competition but cooperation. If governance is reduced to a mere victory lap for those in power, it betrays its founding purpose. Our leaders must embody this principle if democracy is to remain a viable and just system of government.