The relative worth of any political system is difficult to parse. It is natural to predicate such an analysis on the practical results of the compared systems, but such results rely on historical evidence, which is too often lacking, biased or nonexistent. Given the enormous time frame necessary for a legitimate comparison of democracy to its rivals, and the biasing effect any governmental system has on its historians, such an empirical basis cannot be used in this case. That leaves as an arena only the philosophical. In this case, the true question is, “To what extent is democracy "right" according to the worldview of the writer?”
To effectively pursue this argument, that worldview must be defined. Here, greatly simplified, it is: The basis of all good human interactions is choice. Just as the ability to make life decisions determines the fully realized human, so does the right of choice, defended by whatever measures can be properly and effectively employed, determine the fully realized society. Government must minimize the negative consequences of choice, but must never actually abrogate it, except in such situations where the choice of one individual damages or destroys those of others. Or, in an effective if stilted phrase, “An it harm none, do what thou wilt.”
A strictly schoolbook understanding of the nature of democracy might lead an observer to view it as the antithesis of the above view. Democracy holds at its very center the idea that any person has the right to pass judgment, not only intellectually but temporally, on the life of any other. The sovereign power of a democracy is in the individual vote, and in a pure democracy enough votes can precipitate genocide with no less moral imperative than in the drafting of a charity initiative. In its conceptual form, democracy increases the possibility of oppression to the precise extent of the number of citizens in the society.
De Tocqueville spoke of “the tyranny of the majority” and democracy makes no provision for its limitation. Had slavery in the United States been decided by a vote instead of a war, plantations might still be found in Georgia. So how can democracy, the perfect instance of the ideological herd moving at the speed of the member with the slowest mind, be justified by a progressive?
It may be justified because democracy is the least reactionary social structure the collective mind of humanity has yet to yield. The crucial question of the progressive is “Why is the current power structure being preserved?” The answer in a democracy is that the average person does not actively seek change, and many individuals actively shun it. Unfortunately enough, that is the best answer that any society has provided. The answer in an empire is “Because the person in charge created, and in fact embodies, the current power structure.” The answer in a monarchy is “Because the society is controlled by the person who has benefited most from the current power structure.”
The answer in an oligarchy is “Because to be outside the current power structure is by definition the worst thing that can happen to those within it.” In a communism, the answer is “Because we have decided, or been convinced, that there is no power structure to be either preserved or dismantled.” Because in a true democracy no one has a vested or personal interest in sustaining the status quo, and because in a true democracy the presentation of progressive or contrarian views cannot be met by violence or coercive suppression, as they could in all of the above societies.
However, there is a pragmatic argument against the support of democracy by a progressive as well. That argument can be best phrased as follows: In order to call oneself a progressive, one must be convinced of the rightness of his or her views. Given that, shouldn't the progressive want a smaller power base? After all, it means that many less people to convince. And don't think for a second that a nondemocratic society is harder to convince of progressive principles. Ask the French at Yorktown. Better yet, ask the British.”
Like all pragmatic arguments, the above is very seductive. And like many, it can and should be answered ethically. A progressive can afford to be pragmatic in practice, but never in theory. A progressive must guarantee the rightness of his/her ideals, because no one else will. It should be hard for a progressive to convince his society.
A society with flawed principles imposed through reasoned debate and popular consensus is preferable to one with progressive ideals imposed by fiat of the few, both because imposition of the will of the few on the many without their input is repugnant and because it leads to uprising and the ultimate decline of the society. I would rather have an oppressive society in which I was oppressed than one in which I was doing the oppressing.
