Is democracy able to handle today’s challenges?
Most of us, if suffering from a serious medical condition, would turn to a knowledgeable medical professional for advice, and not worry about whether their advice squares with our political disposition or the musings of broadcast media personalities we follow. Certain things should be left to the experts. And the question I wish to pose here is whether our standard conception of democracy risks neutralizing experts, thereby subjecting the citizenry to grave perils.
That was made clear to me on a recent trip back from Chaco Canyon. In returning south over the Continental Divide near Cuba, I could not but help notice large numbers of juniper and piñon trees at the summit near death. Coming within hours of reports of the emerging omicron variant of coronavirus, I was reminded of the reality that we live in a world dominated by two major systems: the natural system and the social system. The former operates on the fixed natural laws of the physical universe. The latter on the changeable practices and theories in at least the political realm.
If science tells us that certain toxins raise the prospects of mortality, no matter how much we may wish it otherwise, the course set out by the laws of nature proceeds. The changeable practices and theories of politics operating in the social system, however, function through intellectual persuasion, itself the product of how best the persuader is able to prey on what the persuaded is led to see as their self-interest. Alter the quality of the argument or the interest perceived by the self, and the outcome shifts.
No less than with those dying trees and coronavirus, many instances exist when the natural system and the social system confront each other. On such occasions, it doesn’t matter what elected officials or the political theoreticians along the ideological spectrum have to say. The natural laws of the physical universe will have their way. The height of folly is in pretending that by just committing more ardently to beliefs underpinning our social system we can somehow change an outcome.
Given such a reality, and the fact that the speed at which nature is able to move can position it to quickly overwhelm people inclined to dither in debate, is it the ultimate sacrilege to ask whether our standard conception of democracy may be thoroughly naive?
Constitutional catechism trains us to embrace the notion that democracy is typified by citizen-elected representatives deciding all matters of public importance. Yet we are all aware that no less a defender of democracy than Churchill reminded us it is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. In view of Churchill’s insight, is it too radical to ask whether democracy could be enhanced by a re-conceptualization that leaves to relevant nonelected scientific experts situations where the natural and social systems confront each other and an existential natural threat happens to be concerned?
Experts can be wrong and influenced by personal biases. But to what extent are elected representatives, grossly illsuited to a task, and selected by citizens whose obsession with individualism often demands a self-centered quid pro quo for election support, able to render wiser decisions?
Does democracy relish citizen-elected representative participation to humor voters with the illusion that more minds produce better results, or to salve discontents associated with governance lying outside the direct control of the governed? Whatever the case, wouldn’t a democracy that leaves to the experts matters of science implicating existential threats produce more rational and considered public policy?
Rex J. Zedalis is professor of law, emeritus, University of Tulsa. He lives in Placitas.
The height of folly is in pretending that by just committing more ardently to beliefs underpinning our social system we can somehow change an outcome.