Is democracy’s dangerous path inevitable?
Three years after the raid on the Capitol, when supporters of Donald Trump tried to block the ratification of Joe Biden’s election, it is inconceivable that the possibility of Trump’s being elected again in November can still be the subject of serious discussion. Not only because the democratic institutions of the United States allow the former president to campaign even as he is prosecuted for a number of crimes allegedly committed in business and politics, but because there seems to be something fatalistic in the expectation of a new Trump term. Democracy appears to raise its arms in surrender when dealing with people or movements who ignore the rules of the game and threaten the polity. It is as if democracy demands difficult tests to prove that it is not manipulated by anyone – even if this leads to its manipulation.
Aristotle feared that democracy interfered with the rule of law, as the majority could decide whatever it wished. The US founding fathers devised a complicated set of ‘checks and balances’ to prevent this ‘tyranny of the majority’
The period between the Brexit referendum in June 2016 and Britain’s exit from the EU in January 2020 is indicative of this fatalism (or fatal sticking to procedure) which, in effect, allowed a slim majority to overturn the country’s course, as well as Europe’s. There was a potential way out, either with the government and the rest of the political world deciding that the referendum was simply consultative, or with the holding of another referendum when the provisions of the breakup agreement were established. And yet, almost all involved behaved as if the people’s verdict was sacred, inviolable. The supporters of “Leave” demanded respect for the result, whereas their rivals, who were bound by democratic rules, could not avert what they feared would be disastrous for the country. Although the vote in favor of Brexit was marginal (51.89% with of 72.21% of registered voters taking part), and its consequences were still unknown, maintaining the rule of law worked towards a change that would have unpredictable and decisive consequences for all residents of Britain. Despite some demonstrations in favor of “Remain,” the general feeling was that the people voted, no one had the right to question their verdict, and that, from here on, Brexit had to become a success – as if correcting course was out of the question.
Trump’s pursuit of a new term differs from Brexit. A common point, though, is the indifference among their supporters as to the consequences of their victory. In Britain, the rule of law and Parliament were pushed aside (by the Johnson government) so as not to obstruct the “will of the people,” whereas in the United States, the violent attempt to block the democratic process in Congress did not stir the general awakening in support of democracy that one would have expected (until then, in any case). Today we know that Trump’s supporters are even more fanatic, seeing every move against him as part of an enemy conspiracy. Critics of Trump in the Republican Party are afraid to speak, lest they become targets of threats and violence, while the Democrats are divided (especially regarding Israel) and may just hand the White House and control of Congress to Trump in November.
Aristotle feared that democracy interfered with the rule of law, as the majority could decide whatever it wished. The US founding fathers devised a complicated set of “checks and balances” to prevent this “tyranny of the majority.” And yet, today, when democracy is exploited by its enemies to serve their own ends, few appear able to see the danger and to avert catastrophe.
