What Are Democracy's Prerequisites?
Traits and behaviors that can be empirically measured.
While originating as a concept and, to a limited degree, practice, over 2,500 years ago, democracy existed only sporadically until the advent of Pax Americana in the 20th century. From a handful of countries (Great Britain and its colonies, France (intermittently), and Iceland) in the nineteenth century, it spread to 43.1% of the world’s countries comprising close to half of the world's population in 2022 (Economist Intelligence Democracy Index 2022). Yet even today, only a small fraction of humanity enjoys “full democracy,” as defined by the EIU (the United States, by the way, does not make the cut).
The advantages of democracy, from the point of view of the populace, at least, are manifold and manifest:
Freedom of speech and expression – not having to look over your shoulder when expressing an opinion critical of the current power structure;
Freedom of conscience – making a personal decision to worship any God, or none at all;
Freedom from fear – knowing that the rule of law applies equally to all citizens;
Freedom of association – being able to form or disband a group or a party for any lawful purpose;
Equal participation in decision-making at every level of government – having the same vote in free and fair elections as any other citizen, and being able to stand for any political office in the land;
Peaceful transfer of power – not having to worry about coups or insurrections upending legal order, or regimes perpetuating themselves;
Freedom of commerce – being able to freely initiate a voluntary exchange of goods or services;
Attendant incalculable economic benefits – while comprising only 8% of the world’s population, the 24 countries with “full democracy” produce 27% of the world's GDP and enjoy the standard of living (as deduced from per capita GDP) over seven times greater than the countries charitably called “authoritarian” by the EIU.
Given this cornucopia of rewards, why doesn’t the rest of the world adopt the system that, in the immortal words of Winston Churchill, “is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”?
It appears that many have indeed tried, but all too few succeeded, especially in the long run. The Roman Republic lasted almost 500 years before becoming an empire. It is one of the outliers, along with the Republic of Venice (1,100 years, until 1797) and the world’s oldest functioning parliamentary democracy, Iceland, which recently celebrated its twelve-hundredth anniversary.
The French tried five times in the last two hundred and thirty years; the Fifth Republic is in its 65th year. The Germans succeeded on the second try, with a disastrous interregnum. The Russians, likewise, tried twice, the first time in 1917 for all of seven months, and the last time at the end of the 20th century, for a little over a dozen years; one can only hope that they are in another interregnum.
Most Latin American countries experienced many coups and dictatorships amidst democratic attempts; the oldest continuous democracy there (Costa Rica) is a shade over 150 years old, and only two of its 24 countries are considered full democracies.
Asia presents several examples of countries split into two parts, one fully or nominally democratic (Taiwan, South Korea, Republic of Yemen), the other a dictatorship (North Korea, China, South Yemen). Besides South Korea and Taiwan, only Japan qualified as a “full democracy” among its 26 countries.
Sub-Saharan Africa is in the poorest position: only one of its 44 countries, the small island nation of Mauritius, is considered a democracy. When most countries in Africa declared their independence in the 1960s, many attempted to establish democratic forms of government, adopting multi-party systems and holding elections. Most of those attempts were abortive or short-lived, succeeded by dictators, juntas, or one-party states.
All over the world, many newly independent or newly established countries started with grand democratic aspirations, yet only a handful succeeded. Why?
It wasn’t for the lack of examples. According to the Library of Congress, over 20 countries used the United States Constitution as the basis for their own. Other countries used the British Westminster system or the French semi-presidential model. Yet the adaptations didn’t “take.” Again, why?
Even when imposed by force, the record is mixed. Allied victory on the battlefield and subsequent occupation produced democracies in West Germany and Japan but “winning hearts and minds” didn’t succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American Founders believed that the American Constitution rested on the character of its people. Quoting from Preserving a Constitution Designed for a Moral and Religious People:
“One of the foremost constitutional theorists of the founding generation, John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”
Virtue, morality, and religiosity are the right concepts, albeit open to many interpretations and for that reason difficult to assess empirically.
Over the years, I’ve been compiling readily observable character traits and behaviors I believe are indispensable for democracy to take hold and endure. They don’t have to be evident in all, or even maybe most, citizens; but they must be present in the “critical mass” of folks who can influence others and keep the transgressors in line (sometimes literally).
Let’s start with that: queueing, the tendency to form and maintain lines. It requires an ability to wait one’s turn, which demonstrates superior impulse control, regard for the equal rights of one’s fellow citizens, adherence to abstract principles, high regard for order and efficiency, and overall social trust: the belief that others will do the same, which is a corollary of the golden rule, widely adopted. The British are famous for it, with other “fully democratic” countries largely following suit; in the rest of the world, by and large, the concept seems either unknown or widely ignored and abused.
Fair play, the propensity to play by the rules and respect the rights of others. It requires a conviction that honesty and civility should prevail in all interactions, that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, that the field of play in all endeavors should be level, and that abiding by the rules of the game is more important than the outcome. This last sentiment is reflected in one of the most famous quotes in all of sports; it’s worth reproducing, in context:
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name—
He marks—not that you won or lost—but how you played the game
- From Alumnus Football by Grantland Rice
Redemption. To quote A Proclamation on Second Chance Month by the White House:
America has always been a land of second chances, founded on fresh starts, new possibilities, and the belief that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
This was issued by Joe Biden “this thirty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three.” Totalitarian societies hold a person’s transgressions against them forever, condemning them, at best, to second-place status even after their punishment has been served. Democratic societies celebrate redemption, a sincere change of heart and soul, and offer help to folks desiring to rebuild their lives.
Learning from one’s mistakes. One of the traits that distinguished the Romans was their willingness to examine their defeats. The Battle of Cannae in the Second Punic War was a disaster for the Roman Republic, a total rout, one of the worst defeats in Roman history with over fifty thousand dead. Instead of burying that shameful memory and trying to pretend it never happened, the Romans analyzed the reasons for their defeat, made a number of changes to the makeup and conduct of their army, and went on to eventually annihilate Carthage.
After the United States suffered the deadliest terrorist attack on its homeland on September 11, 2001, it initiated a Commission to look into what happened, how it was handled, why it wasn’t prevented, and what lessons the country (and the world) could learn. During the nearly three-year investigation, the 9/11 Commission looked at every aspect of the tragedy, even examining the engineering of the World Trade Center buildings for any deficiencies with an eye toward future improvement.
The willingness, indeed the desire, to learn from mistakes is one of the hallmarks of a free society.
Agreeing to disagree. In a totalitarian or authoritarian society, the goal of an argument is to destroy the opponent, by any means necessary. William F. Buckley Jr., who was a nonpareil debater, had a policy of never debating a communist because such an opponent would lie, make up facts, and use ad hominem tactics.
In a democratic society, the goal of an argument is to find the truth of the matter, and if such proves elusive, to finish the debate amicably by “agreeing to disagree.” This is a tradition with a 2,500-year pedigree: Socrates is reported to have taught that the purpose of an argument is not to win but to learn and to discover the truth.
The ability to lay aside personal opinions in order to preserve amity and maintain harmony in a heterogeneous population is essential to the workings of a democratic society.
Presumption of innocence. Solzhenitsyn frequently mentions how the victims of Communist repression often believed that the other prisoners must have been guilty to have been arrested. The presumption of guilt and the expectation of having to prove oneself innocent is common among authoritarian nations.
The ability to suspend judgment and prejudice until the facts have been gathered and examined is the cornerstone of democratic jurisprudence. It is also required to form a high-trust society necessary for a well-functioning democracy.
Individual responsibility and initiative. In a collectivist society, the expectation is that some responsible authority will take care of everything – fix the damage, correct the oversight, confront the unruly, assist in an emergency, anticipate disaster. (The corollary to that, of course, is that it is also “their” responsibility to catch or prevent everyone from cheating, pilfering, or otherwise bending, stretching, or even breaking the law – and the best the witnesses or bystanders can do is to lodge a delation, often anonymously.)
Here's a typical scenario: a municipal work crew shows up on a random day, without prior notification, digs up the sidewalk, and disappears. The hole and the piles of rubble remain for days, weeks, months, sometimes years; the residents stumble through the debris, brave the road traffic to go around the obstruction, or even fall into the hole in the dark; yet nobody organizes the neighbors to either petition for repair or figure out a fix on their own.
In a free society focused on individual responsibility, citizens are much more apt to address the issues directly, either on their own or, most likely, by recruiting neighbors and friends to tackle the problem or confront the responsible parties. There is even a concept of citizen’s arrest, and certainly an expectation that a miscreant should be confronted immediately and directly once the misdeed is observed.
Benevolence – the desire to help others succeed. American immigrant stories are replete with examples of new arrivals being helped, encouraged, and steered toward success. The democratic society’s pursuit of equality takes the form of pulling everybody up to their full potential.
Conversely, the more totalitarian the society is, the greater the tendency to equalize by pulling everyone down to the same level, resulting in equality of common misery. Indeed, as James Fenimore Cooper said so well:
“Equality, in a social sense, may be divided into that of condition, and that of rights. Equality of condition is incompatible with civilization, and is found only to exist in those communities that are but slightly removed from the savage state. In practice, it can only mean a common misery.
Equality of rights is a peculiar feature of democracies.”
The democratic characteristics listed above stem from the concepts embraced by the founders: virtue, morality, and religiosity; unlike those, they can be subjected to empirical observation and measurement.
There are other traits or behaviors that must be in place or must be developed in order for democracy to take hold. What would you add to this list? What would you remove, or rephrase? Please let me know in the comments!