Democracy Versus Human Nature

DEMOCRACY VERSUS HUMAN NATURE

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D., ABPP    3-11

ABSTRACT:  The appeal of democracy is contrasted with several human characteristics that are not compatible with democracy.

KEY WORDS:  democracy, human nature

By and large democracy seems to be the type of government that most people prefer, although it should be noted that if given a real and free choice, quite a number of people would choose monarchy, at least if there was a reasonable expectation having a benevolent monarch.  (For emotional reasons, we want our officials to be moral and perfect, and we want our President to be in the emotional role of a monarch—the leader at the very top of an authority pyramid.)  The main attractions of democracy are freedom and equality—maximum freedom of action (and minimum interference from government) and a leveling of the status playing field so that no one is recognized as “better than” anyone else and everyone has maximum opportunity to succeed and to rise in society.

However, the citizen activities required to make democracy work run counter to some very familiar human characteristics.

(1) Making good choices of elected officials requires that citizens know quite a bit about candidates, including both personal characteristics (uprightness, values, integrity, etc.) and positions on relevant issues (immigration, wealth distribution, taxation, etc.) and that they monitor the actions of those who are elected.  This takes effort that most citizens are not willing to put forth, especially since most candidates try to please everyone by hiding much of the relevant information about themselves and their positions.  Television is the worst source of accurate and comprehensive information.  Newspapers are better but require reading, something that fewer people do now than in the past.  Really knowing the candidates takes obtaining party or candidate platforms and quite a bit of reading between the lines.  Our news media provide some information of a sound-bite nature about the actions of elected officials, but it is slanted toward the sensational and never gives an official’s voting record or an in-depth presentation of an official’s full position on any issue.

(2) We grow up in small groups (families), and most people continue to relate only to small groups in terms of cooperation and wanting others to have the same benefits from society and government that they and their families and friends are getting.  Government then becomes a competitive arena in which some people seek to get special benefits or treatment (tax breaks, government contracts, votes one way or the other on a given issue) that others in society will not have.  This damages the “social fabric,” since it increases inequality, and those who get less will resent it.

This “me and mine” approach also manifests in a very human tendency to work with and listen only to those we are close to.  We naturally value those who benefit us (cooperating, helping, contributing to campaigns) more than we value others, and few officials are capable of treating everyone the same in their actions and votes, instead of favoring those they value more.  Democracy again becomes a competition, rather than a cooperative total group of citizens who together consider how to structure society so that everyone benefits.

Compensating for these human tendencies (officials favoring those they know and are close to, citizens neglecting their responsibilities to monitor government) requires self-discipline and the recognition that failure in either of these areas can jeopardize a democratic government, through the election of destructive officials and the failure of officials to uphold the democratic principle of equality.  Exposure by the media of the worst malfeasance helps to control it, but greater citizen involvement is much better as a preventive measure.

blog\postings\democracyvshumannature