Democratic Neutrality: A Threat to the
Survival of Liberal Democracy
The “democratic neutrality” appeared in
recent day’s liberal democratic world implicated a serious threat to the
survival of liberal democratic institutions. This phenomenon deserves careful
and in-depth examination.
A liberal democratic system, will decide
who holds which office and exercises what powers through regular,
institutionalized elections. During election campaigns, candidates and
political parties they belonged are required to present wat they stand on issues
of public concern, allowing voters to judge whether their proposals are
reasonable and feasible. Through the process, voters can also evaluate whether
or not the politicians and their teams possess the qualities and capabilities
to deal with unforeseen crises.
One of the fundamental assumptions
underlying liberal democracy is that collective wisdom will be superior to
individual intelligence. In an electoral process free from the threat of
violence and manipulation by authoritarian power, individuals and political
parties must submit themselves for public scrutiny.
Because radical thinking and ridiculous
policies are unlikely to attract sufficient support. Candidates always need to
present themselves as rational and mature, and wading toward the political
center. This shared understanding as called “electability” on candidates
seeking electoral victory, prevent them to advance radical political proposals
and encourage them to behave appropriately.
Yet in an era of rapid change, many people
find themselves victimized in poverty, insecurity, and personal frustration.
Some would develop antisocial sentiments/behaviors as a result of personality
flaws, prolonged discrimination, or deep-seated hatred.
In elections, these individuals find
chances to assert themselves, often supporting politicians who make bold but
hollow promises. Yes, the more absurd the promises, the more appealing they
will be to entice the electorates desperate for change. Whether or not such
promises are sincere or practical become a secondary consideration.
But liberal democracy will crumble if both
voters and politicians are becoming true believers. Once the social order is
under pressure of breaking down, political speculators who despise the rule of
law and refuse to accept institutional constraints will seek it as an
opportunity to seize power. They will stir up public dissatisfaction and
resentment for further catastrophic social tumult. Because they know it’s easy
to agitate the emotions from those suffered from helplessness, inferiority,
frustration and daily oppressive realities
The political speculators exploit mass
movements and get power. Then they will dismantle the institutions and laws
designed to prevent the rise of dictators. Onerous means will be employed to
suppress dissent. The state then falls into a vicious cycle: the more
institutions are undermined, the more extreme politics will become; and the
more extreme politics becomes, the more difficult it will be to restore those
institutions.
In reality, regardless of the level of
economic development or the soundness of social institutions, every society,
ethnic group, state at any historical period will have its share of
unscrupulous and marginalized people. Governments and charitable organizations
should seek to alleviate their suffering and help them integrate into the
“norm”.
In modern democracies, where communication
technologies can rapidly amplify the negative emotions of a few people, it is
important to put off the unlogic resentment and indignation that were once
confined to individuals or small groups at the beginning, or it can be
transformed into politically mobilized protests paving the way for radical
extremists and political speculators with opportunities to exploit social
divisions and seize power.
The political platforms marketed by these
fervent politicians and their followers often fail to withstand the test of
time and social truth. Their pre-election promises may fall down one by one
because they are fundamentally impractical. Their personal integrity and
competence may also be uncovered, revealing their less admirable nature once
they assume office. But perplexingly, they may continue to enjoy the support of
their followers.
Many academics, journalists, political
insiders, and highly-educated tend to believe that the momentum of such
political figures will be eclipsed after they’re exposed of ugly nature.
However, in a democracy, only when an election actually takes place and the
votes are counted can we determine whether these political forces have truly
lost their capacity to threaten democratic institutions.
Recent political developments in the United
States, Europe, and Latin America reveal a disturbing trend: politicians and
parties advocating extreme ideologies have often seen their popularity boosted
even after they made known their vulgar intention to grab power.
In many countries, the extremist parties
may have a considerable chance of replacing mainstream parties and taking
office for first time. Those already in power, may continue to consolidate
their authoritative gains through reelection and declare the demise of liberal
democracy of the nation.
It is hard to explain this phenomenon
through conventional wisdom to distinguish good and evil. and right from wrong.
After all, it must be the case that some people have suffered from certain
issues that they regard the status quo as intolerable and believe that
immediate change is imperative.
Consequently, when unconventional political
figures or parties offer solutions or just attention for the issues some voters
have so much concerns, they will appreciate and believe someone is willing to
address their grievances seriously. This may remain true even when the proposed
solutions are contrary to human nature, impractical, or likely to inflict even
greater harm later.
The fact that a number of voters may select
support discredited politicians and parties rather than continue placing their
trust in established mainstream political forces will compel us to learn now
that the survival of liberal democracy might not be for granted.
It is a phenomenon within liberal
democratic systems that deserves closer examination. We can call it “democratic
neutrality” tentatively. It only happens when people feel alright to disregard
issues they’re not interested, so in certain senses, so it may also be
described as “democratic indifference.”
In countries where democratic institutions
have been functioning for many years, voters tend not to reject a politician
outright just because he or she shows anti-democratic inclination.
On the contrary, if these politicians or
parties they belong express agreement with voters on one particular issue, or
promise to take decisive action on that issue, voters may be willing to cast
their ballots in their favor.
As for other issues, voters may remain
unconvinced or even strongly dislike certain positions taken by anyone. Yet, as
long as those issues do not interfere with their own interests, they may simply
choose to ignore the disagreement, adopting an apparently tolerant and neutral
attitude.
Such neutrality, however, is often not the
product of thoughtful deliberation or genuine tolerance. Rather, it reflects
indifference toward a broad range of public issues or we could say it is a
feeling of complacent over long time liberal democratic indulgence.
Probably for the political calculus,
certain politicians take a strategy of incremental advances: they introduce one
proposal after another and implement one executive order after another. They do
not need to secure majority support for every issue or every action. As long as
they can gain an advantage on one or two issues that will resonate with voters'
emotions, they may accumulate sufficient support to win an election.
For example, some voters may be unfamiliar
with, or simply unconcerned about, a particular politician's other policies.
However, if they believe that this politician is more uncompromising and
determined than moderate opponents on issues such as opposition to immigration
or anti-Muslim sentiment, and is even more likely to take swift action, they
may choose to vote for that politician.
Under the circumstance, they may turn a
blind eye to the politician's anti-democratic tendencies in other areas or
their unscrupulousness to damage the whole society for proposal. and actions.
Actually, it is a calculated “shotgun
approach” to win political campaign: the presumptuous politicians launch
offensives on multiple issues simultaneously, using different policy positions
to attract different groups of voters and thereby forage enough support to win.
Observers often see these presumptuous
politicians and their parties advancing a dozen, or even a hundred, proposals
that definitely not to command majority support among the public. They then
conclude, based on the individual approval ratings of these proposals, that
such politicians cannot possibly win an election.
The assessment is overly rational ignoring
an important factor: voters do not cast separate ballots on every individual
policy. Instead, they must make an overall choice among a limited number of
candidates and political parties.
When voters focus on only one or two issues
while adopting an attitude of “democratic neutrality” toward the rest,
politicians who appear to lack majority support may nevertheless prevail at the
ballot box.
Consequently, misconstruing the effects of
selective attention and political indifference may lead us to seriously
underestimate the possibility of extremist parties gaining or retaining power.
Changing a government through elections
rather than revolution at least indicates that the state is failed and the
violent overthrow of its government becomes necessary. Its democratic
institutions still have capacity to operate so as to constrain the power of
those in office.
This does not, however, mean that democracy
is necessarily safe. If voters use elections to hand power to individuals who
intend to destroy the democratic system, probably in an accelerating pace,
democracy may lose its true meaning through legal procedures.
By comparison, authoritarian and
totalitarian states do not allow the public to replace their rulers through
free and fair elections reflecting the people's political will peacefully.
Within the political logic of such systems,
individual choices are often dismissed as expressions of self-interest, while
the common interests of society are claimed to be understood and represented
exclusively by the dictator.
The argument dated back to the thesis made
by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau between the “General Will” and
the “Will of All.” The former refers to the common interest, whereas the latter
represents the add-up of individual wills.
The problem arises when a dictator claims
to be the sole representative of the General Will, he will have complete
freedom to interpret any proposal. The distinction may become a pretext for
monopolizing political power, so comes the tyrant-envy of today’s
authoritarian-will-be.
Liberal democracies were established
precisely because people do not believe that any leader possesses absolute
wisdom or is immune from making mistakes.
Democratic institutions therefore realizes
that political judgments can be wrong and preserve the opportunity to correct
possible wrong-doings through the separation of powers, the rule of law,
freedom of speech, regular elections, and public scrutiny.
Yet the emergence of extremist parties and
political figures, from Europe to Latin America and the United States, is now
posing a severe challenge to the institutions supposed to check and balance the
tyrant’s power.
These politicians often try to magnify the
governance efficiency of authoritarian states in certain areas deliberately,
showing to public an impression that strongman politics is superior to
democracy. At the same time, they never speak about the risks associated with
unchecked power, persuading voters that longstanding problems can be resolved
simply by granting sufficient authority to a strong leader.
In this process, voters may unwittingly
offer a political mandate for specific problems into an assent of a leader's
unrestricted authority.
When politicians further erode
institutional checks and balances, reducing the political space for
oppositions, or even depict their critics as foreign agents or internal
enemies, democratic institutions may exist only in name while the dictator and
his lackey continue to prosper.
The most troubling aspect of this dooming
process is that it does not necessarily take the form of a revolution or coup
d'état that people unwanted. It may begin with a legitimate election, with
voters' strong expectation for reformation on certain issues, or more than
often, many people’s indifference toward other public issues.
Therefore, when reform promises become
justifications for dismantling institutions, and when voters tolerate the
continued concentration of power in order to resolve immediate problems, though
in glacier speed and get unnoticed. Democracy may begin to sow the seeds of its
own destruction through normal procedures.
Reform may evolve into revolution, and
revolution may, in turn, become the starting point for the rise of a dictator.
When a democratic society begins to believe
that only unchecked power can solve its problems, the real crisis facing
liberal democracy may only just be beginning.
From Brazil's October 25 referendum on the
presidential candidates, to Israel's October 27 general election, and finally
to the United States' November 3 midterm elections, will extremist parties and
political figures suffer the crushing defeats on the grounds of their absurd
policy positions as self-proclaimed “rational observers” have predicted?
Or will the outcome once again defy
conventional expectations?
Let us wait and see.
