2024 is the year of elections. Over 60 countries, accounting for half of the worlds’ population, are heading to the polls. Democracy is clearly thriving in many of these countries. Democracy is a system of government where the whole population or all the eligible members of a state elect representatives. In democracies, officials are answerable to the public. This idea is essential to maintaining the integrity of governance because it guarantees (theoretically) that choices are made in the public’s interest. At the other end of the spectrum are autocracies, a system of government where one person or party has absolute power. To understand if there is such a thing as too much democracy, we need to assess the advantages and drawbacks of the various systems of government.
Whether a democracy or autocracy, political instability is a significant obstacle to achieving economic progress and social justice by creating an unpredictable environment. There are stable autocracies like China and unstable democracies like Pakistan. In this essay we do not address this aspect specifically and focus more on the general aspects of democracies vs autocracies.
Democracy as a system of governance, has been shown to deliver substantial benefits, though research to this end is not conclusive. The Carnation Revolution in Portugal in 1974, ended nearly five decades of authoritarian rule under the Estado Novo regime. The new democratic Portugal saw significant improvements in its GDP, educational attainment and public health provision leading to greater life expectancy and lower infant mortality. Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at MIT and James Robinson, a political scientist at the University of Chicago co-authored a study titled “Democracy Does Cause Growth”. According to their research, countries that switched to democratic governance saw a 20% increase in GDP over 25 years compared to those remaining under authoritarian rule. They attribute this to democracies investing more in healthcare, education and social protection policies which increased the overall standard of living (MIT News 2019). In addition, Sen and Pritchett in their Harvard Kennedy study showed that democracies do not suffer catastrophic growth collapses which more often afflict autocracies.
However, is there a downside to having too much democracy? Many democratic countries are not happy with their governments. In Mexico, Greece, Brazil and Spain 80% of individuals were dissatisfied and in Nigeria, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, and Tunisia 60% were unhappy with the performance of their democracy (Pew Research Centre 2018)
There are three main issues with democracy as a form of government. First is the uninformed or uneducated voter who is unaware of the implications behind voting for certain policies or people. In 2016 the UK decided to leave the European Union after a referendum (one may argue that referendums, which force the people to vote on political issues, are among the purest forms of democracy.) However, since then, the majority of Britons are concluding that the decision was wrong, with 62% describing Brexit as “more of a failure”, and only 9% considering it “more of a success”. Even the “Leave” voters are divided on the issue: 37% say that it has largely failed, while 35% view it as neither a success nor a failure (YouGov 2023). Bryan Caplan’s 2007 book The Myth of the Rational Voter, finds that the least educated are the most likely to endorse, among other things, higher tariffs, rent control, and stricter regulations on firing employees. Those are three policies that are not favoured by economists because of their harm to general welfare: tariffs hurt consumers and importers; rent control reduces the incentive to build; and laws against firing workers make employers less likely to hire.
The second issue is short term thinking, when leaders want to satisfy short term wants despite negative long term implications due to the desire to run another term. “And when human politicians choose between the next election and the next generation, it’s clear what usually happens,” stated Warren Buffet. The Indian National Congress, the primary opposition party in India in its 48 page manifesto for the 2024 elections, pledged around 1200 USD for every impoverished family every year, one amongst many populist measures (Manifesto of Indian National Congress 2024). Populist schemes are designed to attract widespread public appeal, often by offering direct economic or social benefits to the general population. They usually lack a well-defined strategy for financing or execution, and they frequently have long-term negative fiscal consequences. Short termism can also be observed in the case of the United Kingdom’s national debt. In May 2020, the UK debt exceeded the size of its economy for the first time in 50 years (Financial Times 2020). Governments had allowed debt to increase primarily through borrowing to fund current spending on services such as the NHS, welfare benefits, and pensions since raising taxes is not popular. However this level of debt raises concerns about future generations facing higher taxes and lower spending.
“10% Less Democracy”, a book written by Garret Jones, an economic professor at George Mason University in Virginia, claims that rich countries could be better off with lower democracy. He references a study by Alberto Alesina and Lawrence Summers in 1993, which showed that inflation was lower where there were independent central banks which took a longer term view. It was important that the control of money was with an entity that did not need to use it to boost its chances of winning upcoming elections. Similarly, a study in Europe shows that politicians are less likely to promote free trade when an election year is close. Although in the long run,free trade brings economic growth and innovation, individuals may feel threatened by imports leading to unemployment in the short run.
“A prince should therefore have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organisation and discipline, for that is the only art that is necessary to one who commands,” Machiavelli states, in his book, “The Prince.” In urging rulers to focus on the essentials of the state rather than the whims of the people, Machiavelli criticises leaders who prioritise public approval over the more critical aspects of governance, such as security and stability. In essence, democratic leaders often face significant challenges when implementing long-term beneficial policies that may be unpopular in the short term, due to their reliance on public favour and electoral success. This dependency can limit their ability to think long term which is critical for effective governance.
The third issue is mob rule, or ochlocracy, which refers to public decisions being controlled by the majoritarian mass. It occurs when the majority’s desires outweigh lawful processes, sidelining minority rights. In Plato’s “Republic,” democracy is described as a different form of mob rule, suggesting that it will lead to anarchy. Plato believed that without wise leadership, democracy becomes vulnerable to the irrational whims of the people, hence weakening organised governance and highlighting the risks of widespread power distribution among citizens. Increased Muslim-targeted mob rule has been observed in India, where illegal demolitions of Muslim properties are reported and frequently rationalised as targeting illegal buildings. Furthermore, the Indian government passed the Citizenship Amendment Act which enables minorities persecuted on religious grounds, except Muslims, in neighbouring countries to acquire Indian citizenship. This exclusion has led to significant criticism and accusations of discrimination against Muslims and sparked protests and violence, underscoring the necessity of upholding the law and protecting people’s rights.
Apart from these three main issues, there are other negatives in a democracy including slower decision making, widespread corruption, and periodic expensive elections.
So if democracy has these negatives, what is the alternative? Autocracy, where power is centralised either in a party, military or an individual with no requirement to please voters can address some of these issues. Generally longer term focussed autocratic leaders are able to take far reaching decisions since they do not fear losing their positions of authority through periodic voting. They are able to make decisions which may cause short term pain, but are overall beneficial in the long run.
A paper by Besley and Kudamatsu of LSE talks about how autocratic principles can lead to a successful nation, such as China. China has a one party system, where the public has no vote on the leaders. The party functions as a “selectorate” or a group of individuals who vote for the leader. In this case, even though it is an authoritarian rule, there is accountability as the leader can be voted out of power. Since economic reforms in 1978, China has averaged over 9% growth every year, lifting 800 million people out of poverty (World Bank 2023). China has also made significant improvements in education and healthcare, with its Human Development Index rising from 0.410 in 1978 to 0.788 in 2022 (UNDP 2022). Furthermore, this system eliminates the issue of an uninformed electorate outlined earlier and so the most efficient and well informed economic decisions can be made.
However, autocracies have significant negative effects. Autocracy centralises power, limiting political diversity which can result in abuses of power and violations of human rights. Historically, some of the greatest disasters have been due to authoritarian rule. The Holocaust, orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, resulted in the murder of six million Jews. During Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union, millions of people were sent to labour camps, or died from famine. The Great Purge of the late 1930s is particularly notorious for its political repression and executions. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 led to the Gulf War and the militaristic expansion of Japan under its authoritarian regime in the early 20th century resulted in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Russia’s Putin is an example where an autocrat has dragged an entire country into a war that many in Russia do not support. When explaining their position, Russian people said “I am an unwilling accomplice,” “I feel sorry for the children,” and “It’s impossible to support war” (Carnegie Endowment for International peace 2022).
An autocracy’s lack of public participation in decision-making can lead to policies that are detached from the demands of the people, lowering accountability and transparency. Over time, this can discourage innovation, limit freedom of expression, and impede economic and social progress. Economic indicators like GDP per capita show that China’s economy is 380% larger than India’s (IMF 2024). However, when comparing their Human Development Indices, China only surpasses India by 22% (UNDP 2022). This discrepancy may be explained by India’s democratic government, which places a higher emphasis on the well-being and satisfaction of its citizens.
Even in a high performing autocracy like China, there is danger of the system moving towards extreme authoritarian rule. China’s current premier, Xi Jinping, has removed the two term presidency rule, moving China closer to a dictatorship (BBC 2018). Uyghur muslims in China have no political representation and are exploited as they are used as forced labour. Without checks autocratic leaders may prioritise personal or elite interests over public welfare, which could lead to corruption and ineffective governance.
Democracies can risk moving toward authoritarian rule too. In India, prime minister Modi’s government has faced criticism for undermining the independence of the media, courts, and civic groups. India’s tax and investigation agencies have targeted opposition leaders, even arresting two of them. Additionally, the bank accounts of Congress, the leading opposition party, were frozen, raising concerns about the impartiality of these actions. Therefore, democracies too need vigilant oversight to prevent a drift towards autocratic governance.
Too much democracy can lead to inefficient decisions, populist schemes, short termism, and mob rule. However, limiting democracy poses the risk of a slide towards authoritarian rule, where the negative consequences can be far more disastrous. The potential damage from authoritarian governance far outweighs the pitfalls of a highly democratic system and therefore it is better to err on the side of too much democracy, than too little.
Bibliography
The Economist (2024, April 11). Why most people regret Brexit. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/04/11/why-most-people-regret-brexit
UK public debt exceeds 100% of GDP for the first time since 1963. (n.d.) Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/57974640-8bea-448c-9d0b-32f34825f13e
Warren Buffett, Willetts, D., Howker, E., & Malik, S. (2010). Politics and short-termism. https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2.Politics__Short-termism.pdf
Kent, D. (2024, April 14). 12 countries where people are dissatisfied with democracy | Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2019/05/31/the-countries-where-people-are-most-dissatisfied-with-how-democracy-is-working/
Study: Democracy fosters economic growth (2019, March 7). MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://news.mit.edu/2019/study-democracy-fosters-economic-growth-acemoglu-0307#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20countries%20switching%20to%20democratic,authoritarian%20states%2C%20the%20researchers%20report.
Cato.org. (2024). Available at:
https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2020/10-less-democracy
The Economist. (2020, February 13). Why an excess of democracy can lead to poor decisions. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/02/13/why-an-excess-of-democracy-can-lead-to-poor-decisions
Indian National Congress. (n.d.). Manifesto of the Indian National Congress for the Lok Sabha elections. https://manifesto.inc.in/assets/Congress-Manifesto-English-2024-Dyoxp_4E.pdf
The Economist. (2021, January 14). Political theorists have been worrying about mob rule for 2,000 years. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/16/political-theorists-have-been-worrying-about-mob-rule-for-2000-years
India: Government policies, actions target minorities. (2021, February 19). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/19/india-government-policies-actions-target-minorities
Overview. (n.d.). World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#:~:text=Results-,Since%20China%20began%20to%20open%20up%20and%20reform%20its%20economy,services%20over%20the%20same%20period
BBC (2018). China’s Xi allowed to remain ‘president for life’ as term limits removed. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276.
Volkov, D. ., & Kolesnikov, A. (2022, September 7). My country, right or wrong: Russian public opinion on Ukraine. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803
Besley, T., Kudamatsu, M., London School of Economics and Political Science, CIFAR, & Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines. (2007b). Making autocracy work. In Development Economics Discussion Paper Series. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3764/1/Making_Autocracy_Work.pdf
Publications. (n.d.). Harvard Kennedy School. https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/Index.aspx
Imf.org. (2024). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/USA/DEU.
United Nations Development Programme (2022). Human Development Insights. [online] Human Development Reports. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/country-insights#/ranks.
Shivi Vikram – A Level – CS International.
Cover Illustration – Shri Sanjith – Grade 10, CS Academy.