Put aside the conspiracy theories, latest Trump tweets and wonky wars of healthcare: let’s think bigger picture and longer term—on the future of democracy itself. Is rising populism, anti-government rage, and scorched earth partisanship destroying self-governance as we have known it? Or just signaling a cyclical downturn? Maybe the political system we hold dear is collapsing into history.
Ah, history. Not just a sad destination but also a helpful friend for serious future-gazing. Can’t democracy’s origins and past development help us understand how resilient our current system of governance might be? And provide insight to the long-term prospects for our democratic way of life?
Those questions brought me to Paul Cartledge, recently retired Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at Cambridge University, and author of a recent magisterial survey on the origins and development of “governance by the people”: Democracy: A Life (Oxford University Press, 2016).
More Power To The People—Or Less?
I spoke to Professor Cartledge after my January conversation with another thought-provoking academic, Roslyn Fuller. Fuller had voiced pessimism about today’s democracy, but in her own new book, proposed an ancient-style solution: lance the boil of popular frustration about bureaucratic and distant representative government by “going back to an Athenian future”—embrace technology and some other structural changes to give all citizens direct say and participation in political decision-making.
“Heavens, no!” exclaimed Cartledge.
“Yes,” he continued, “for the longest time we’ve had a deficit of democracy in our governing systems—but now we’re having a surplus. Our recent U.K. referendum on Scottish independence (and again in the news), the disastrous and barely majoritarian outcome of Brexit, and the disturbing election of your new President—the last three years have been some of the most tumultuous of my adult life. This kind of decision-making has not represented sound ideas of an informed population, and but it does portend the potential for a dangerous abuse of popular power, perhaps even fascism.”
“Using smart phones to vote or summon up more direct democracy is not what we need. The best hope lies with moderating populist trends underway. Representative-style government can be improved, but it’s still the best answer for the scale of governance nations must undertake today.”
Democracy Through The Ages
To dive deeper, Paul recounted a brief history of democracy, following his book. I probed repeatedly on three questions: What does past practice teach about what makes democracy strong, and resilient? What makes democracy break down? What should leaders today do to keep it alive for tomorrow?
Our discussion ranged across Cartledge’s years of research (particularly pre-modern history), and some of his own early career politicking. He offered no simple solutions—there are none– but he commented insightfully about challenges and hopes for preserving western democracy. A few of the enlightening themes follow:
1. Democracy in practice has not been a timeless, static concept but rather a march of punctuated experiments that “learn from the past.” Cartledge emphasized that although “democracy” is loosely applied to different regimes in history, its workings—and cultures—have varied, often substantially, over time. “In judging success and resilience, we need to understand that direct, full-on participatory system of ancient Athens was very different from, say, what the Romans developed in their Republic, or of course the representative model of today’s Anglo-American constitutions. In fact, even in Athens itself, the role of the individual, the institutions, and the decision-making practices were different in different phases of its history. ‘One size does not fit all.'”
“But ‘democracy’ does demonstrate some thematic historical consistency—organizing people around concepts of freedom, equality, and participatory self-governance, though varying in different constitutions. Leaders today should understand how those concepts worked in different cases—the dynamic of how different versions of democracy functioned—and what made each succeed or ultimately fail. Democracy in the west has been a series of ongoing experiments, each attempting to improve upon the shortcomings of previous models.”
Mixed Constitutions
“For example, the Athenians took measures during the fourth century BCE to minimize the volatility of the more free-ranging participatory politics of the fifth century. The Roman Republic similarly adopted a so-called “mixed constitution” which institutionalized checks and balances between popular and elite governing bodies, building further on the painful lessons when Greek democracy degenerated into “mobocracy.” Those same lessons were taken to heart by drafters of the U.S. Constitution to produce your system of “checks and balances,” separating powers among branches of government.”
So what are today’s leaders learning from history? Campaign rhetoric still rings about “draining the swamp” and changing this or that procedural rule to beat the other party—but who’s really thinking about fixing the failures and improving our system overall?
2. Each new “experiment” brought fresh compromises and new vulnerabilities to the democratic model. Just as every organizational design has strengths and weaknesses, so have different models of democracy through history. Cartledge referenced Athenian efforts to stabilize their democracy in the fourth century BCE—reducing legal lawmaking authority of the people, creating new officials to quality-control decision-making—that lessened the dangers of “mobocracy” but also “made for a less vital, more top-down culture of participation.” The “safer” mixed constitution of the Romans reduced citizen participation to “mostly voting in elections and town hall- style discussions,” but it also contributed to rising popular anger that opportunistic generals would later mobilize against one another, in civil war that destroyed the Res Publica. The same model encouraged bribery and favoritism by elite politicians to get plum assignments in the growing empire—another blow to the common good.
Now consider our democracy today, with its own trade-offs and compromises. Rigorous checks and balances offer critical stability—but also enable our system to get bogged down in litigation and lobbying, cross-branch in-fighting, and molasses-like decision-making for a global economy demanding ever more agility. What might a future model of democracy do to alleviate that?
The Power Of Community
3. Despite differences, all democratic models try to create “a community of citizens.” Athenian democracy, the most radical form of self-governance, was built on a community that promised political freedom and equality coupled with giving citizens a say—and obligation—to steer their own destiny. Its ethos was to share commitment, opportunity and sacrifice, all on behalf of the community that citizens themselves comprised.
Later democratic constitutions through history designed different versions of a “citizen community,” though inevitably systems of checks and balances, and “mixed approaches” ended up creating conflict among different groups of stakeholders.
Far-seeing politicians have tried to mitigate that, as Cartledge points out, by redefining, and shifting the emphasis of freedom—away from “freedom to [do something, e.g.. having a say in one’s governance],” to “freedom from [interference, e.g. protection of personal rights].” One great advance of the Roman constitution, as he explained, was a broader extension of citizenship than Greeks allowed in their time, providing a range of special protections to people in the growing imperial state. But the privileges did not include the same kind of freedom that Greek citizens enjoyed—while the sacrifices Roman citizens were asked to make (military and financial) were comparably onerous.
From ‘We’ To ‘Me’
The imbalance between rights and sacrifices has often made democracies vulnerable to popular backlash. Thus Cartledge again: “The demise of the Roman Republic was a collapse of the ‘culture of we’ into a ‘culture of me.’ Power-hungry generals built factions of citizens to back them first in political power and then out-and-out civil war, trading military support for grants of conquered land.”
“The breakdown of community has throughout history been a driving causes of democracy’s failure. You can even argue that the rise of philosophical schools in the fourth century BCE and later, and the turning away from community towards personal ethics and knowledge contributed to the loss of Greek democracy.”
How much, in our current culture, are the growing popularity of self-help and personal improvement, advocacy for deep individual rights versus community prerogatives stoking the decline of democracy today? Is there a way to rebalance the mix, to recapture a “greater good”?
4. Democracy thrives on economic growth and moderation of inequality. Today there’s plenty of talk about how the ravages of globalization and slipping wages are fueling populism; and why growing economic inequality is not just morally unfair but bad for our own democracy. Professor Cartledge once more invokes the lessons of history.
“The golden age of Roman Republicanism came in the third and second centuries BCE, when their proto-empire was growing across the Mediterranean world—providing benefits for a wider population and new material wealth for social generosity. And the terrific expansion and prosperity of the fifth century Athenian empire—further enabled by their use of slave labor—greatly enhanced that city-state’s ability to invite, and also pay for, all citizens to participate in self-governance.”
Elite Competition And Sauve Qui Peut
“During the most vital years of Athenian democracy, the danger of unequal distribution of wealth, and corresponding social volatility, was offset by a strong culture of public contribution by the rich. Wealthy people were heavily taxed to pay for public festivals, naval ships, and athletic games (“liturgies”). The genius of the model was how it created benign competition at the top—the elite were constantly trying to outdo each other in giving the most magnificent gifts to the public good. Everyone benefited.”
“But the mechanism was fragile. When Athenians started losing militarily to the Spartans, rich people blamed the demos and began resenting public contributions. Athens suffered a couple of oligarchic revolutions against its democracy, and the delicate social compact always broke down into well-to-do vs. poor.” In the final phase of its democracy, the wealthy elite abandoned public liturgies, and instead used their money to curry political favor with the new Macedonian rulers who conquered Athens in about 330 BCE.” Community became sauve qui peut.
5. Democracy’s viability is tested under external pressure and survival is never guaranteed.
Different democratic systems have risen and fallen through history, noted Cartledge, often collapsing when some external shock tore apart the fabric of political community.
“When Athenian democracy yielded to its oligarchic revolutions, and then later to external conquest, those events threatened the survival of the state—breaking the social compact between rich and poor. Even great leaders—like Pericles in the fifth century— struggled to stem civil destruction in such crisis. Throughout history, war and resulting domestic strife have repeatedly undermined democratic systems–in Rome, England and France, and of course, in a very close call, your own Civil War.”
That said, Cartledge also reminded me that, on the long view, democracy in its various forms has bounced back repeatedly, evolving into different configurations of power-sharing. “But you can’t take the survival of any constitutional system—including our current ones–for granted. Athens’ version did eventually disappear, as did the Republicanism in Rome.”
Consider now today’s challenges. If war erupts from simmering conflicts with Russia, China, or North Korea, will our own constitutional way of life necessarily survive? Will our leadership be strong enough not just to prevail in a showdown of force but also to preserve civic freedom, equality and decision-making?
A Blueprint For Leaders
Paul Cartledge closed with a few practical suggestions for strengthening current democracy.
1. Double down but improve the system of checks and balances. For Cartledge, the growing populist empowerment—proliferating referendums, mobilizing movements through social media and the like—now threatens stable democracy. Rather than abandon our “mixed constitution” he argues simply to strengthen it—make it simpler, more nimble, and ultimately more participative, while still preserving its core of check and balances.
2. Revitalize representation and political parties. Cartledge argues that the size and scale of nation states, and their breadth of population will continue to require representative government; similarly political parties—“though full of various compromises, these are still the best way to unify different policy points of view, and avoid fragmentation.” But he also believes both can do more to engage citizens—not necessarily as decision-making arms, but for discussion, town-hall conversation and debates, and generally to include many more people of all backgrounds in the broader formulation of policy choices. If there is a good use of social media and technology, he adds, it should be more for this— to engage citizens in a more vital way, but not as a substitute for decision and policy-making by elected representatives.
3. Build (and rebuild) a stronger sense of political community, especially through the education of citizens. Cartledge pointed repeatedly to the importance of “community” in different democracies, and emphasized why an educated and informed citizenry must be one of the cornerstones of such culture.
“Old fashioned civics lessons had some value—but frankly, even more important, is ‘education by doing’—I think there’s much to learn from ancient democracy, which saw the engagement of citizens in public life—in courts, festivals, assemblies—as a focus of learning and growth for every member of the community. Creating modern mechanisms to build increased participation of our citizens—for example selecting people by lot (“sortition”) to perform more government roles, engage in policy forums, etc.—might recreate the kind of civic education that was core to Athenian democracy. Instilling such experience could be one of the strongest ways to protect our democracies today.”
Originally published on Forbes.com