Democracy after America

After Conscription was instituted after Election Day during the 2040 invasion of North Korea, the masses were rallied behind the words of Speaker of the House Ethan Gaskin to revive support for U.S. democratization efforts in Southeast Asia. The confiscation of “war materials” was widespread, voting has not produced a change in government since 2016, and protest has been deemed illegal. Yet, there has been no protest, no discontent, no participation, and especially no discourse. The once great halls of the Supreme Courts remain empty after American politicians convinced the public against its utility immediately following the National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius decision. Massive protests characterized this brief transition at the start of the thirty year period preceding 2040, which has been called the “Age of Peace” by politicians and the “Age of Pacifism” by only those who choose to challenge the system (however few they may be). By the latter half of the 21^st century, American democracy became drastically transformed from its original founding to something else entirely: nothing more than a state with a shattered sense of democratic community and individualism that has “drawn and quartered” democracy with the flame of democratic discourse long extinguished.

            American politics and society embodies the central democratic illusion of the modern age—that representative democracy is the only reasonable and legitimate institution that could benefit governmental accountability. What is frequently overlooked in American society is the fact that plenty of alternative versions of democracy, which are better at keeping the authoritarian tendencies of governments from spreading, fail to be discussed or even considered during political discussions. In America, representative democracy and the Tripartite System tend to be placed on a pedestal along with the utility of voting in elections. Once a form of government succeeds in entrenching itself deep within society, citizens stop utilizing political discourse to challenge pre-existing government power structures; citizens stop looking for truth within society. The connection between democracy and deliberation is best made by David and Roger Johnson, who state that:

Conflict among… opinions… lead to inquiry, and inquiry to truth… It is not enough for the current political leaders to be virtuous and committed to each other and our democracy. Each generation has to develop a commitment to democracy and a moral bond with fellow citizens to engage in political discourse… This moral bond is cultivated by deliberating with fellow citizens… and… requires (a) citizen participation in their own governance and (b) a common set of values. (Johnson 292, 3, 5)

Therefore, the problematic circumstances for representative democracy occurs when discourse is poisoned (such as when political discourse fails to reflect the truth of ideas or the integrity of politicians), non-existent, or both. However, in the case of American democracy, any productive discourse is largely non-existent and normal discourse becomes destructive and poisonous whenever it does occur. By using an excerpt from David M. Kennedy’s editorial, The Unfunny Joke That is U.S. Politics, David and Roger Johnson best explain the lack of American political discourse by saying that:

In American politics, “foolishness is relentlessly driving out seriousness”. … During the past decade, the United States has nurtured a ferociously acquisitive individualism and unhinged an entire generation from any sense of common purpose. … Genuine argument has been banished from the public square, impoverishing us all. (Johnson 309)

Furthermore, even though the absence of discourse might create a problematic situation, the presence of deconstructive discourse is even more damaging. Neil Postman, in his book explains why deconstructive discourse is occurring by explaining that:

In America… television is altering the meaning of 'being informed' by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. … Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information--misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information--information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing. (Postman 106)

Therefore, since American culture has become entrenched in and dependent upon television to construct political discourse, democracy is suffering because individuals’ preferences are being manipulated by representatives pandering to maintain a stranglehold on political power. Furthermore, voting is one of the reasons why American democracy is decrepit in the status quo because it entertains the illusion of political power long enough to build the unfounded support from the constituency necessary to entrench real power beyond the reach of the citizenry. The lack of real discourse only furthers the destruction of political accountability because it creates a feeling of acceptance in a citizenry that is fed campaign slogans and ideologies instead of creating a citizenry that feeds ideas and policies to the government. Since voting allows the constituency to only react to policy fed down through the government structure, individuals have no direct influence on government and are virtually powerless in that they cannot force representatives to produce change. Therefore, since representatives are forced to focus on elections and gaining political power, the result of voting is that representatives only create an illusion of change by pandering to the constituency only when votes matter, which is immediately before an election. Also, by examining the effectiveness of controversy, deliberation, and elections in a democracy, David and Roger Johnson conclude that:

When winning an election or gaining political power becomes more important than the democratic system itself, democracy is in danger. … When political discourse is ignored, for example, and negative means of political persuasion are used, the destructiveness of the conflict undermines democracy. The constructive use of political discourse is dependent on having a normative procedure that is truly effective. (Johnson 312, 313)

Therefore, it becomes imperative that all citizens engage in a thorough examination and self-reflection of democracy before automatically accepting the current, representative system as justified and effective. Questioning the already present power structures is crucial to the examination of American democracy, but, in order for an examination of democracy to be effective and worthwhile, a realistic alternative must be available. Fortunately, because the American idea that “direct democracy is dead” is wrong, viable alternatives exist in the real world that are more effective in holding government accountable and challenging power structures.

            Made popular by Porto Alegre, participatory democracy (which is more specifically implemented using participatory budgeting, a process where citizens vote on local budget proposals in deliberative forums) effectively empowers the non-elite in a democracy. As a partial alternative to strictly electoral representation in democracy, participatory democracy involves citizens directly in the policymaking process. In an analysis of citizen participation, Derick Brinkerhoff establishes the clear importance of institutionalized participation by explaining that:

Participation works best when it is built into ongoing public institutions and decision making procedures. …This allows for an iterative cycle of policymaking, with civil society organization input continuously feeding back into new decisions. … Circumstances change continuously and it is important that disadvantaged groups have opportunities to keep on taking part in decisions about their country’s monetary and fiscal posture. (Brinkerhoff 698)

Furthermore, participatory democracy has a significant ability to solve the difficulties and negatives created by representative democracy due to the incredibly high ability to empower citizens using the unique process of participatory democracy. Using the example of Participatory Budgeting in Southeast Asia, Christopher Gibson emphasizes solvency when he observes that:

Deliberative spaces substantially defused the influence of pre-existing power distributions and, at times, replaced a normative, power-politics logic of bargaining with the communicative standard of reason-based argumentation. Thus, marginalized groups acquired a capacity to engage governing elites through this specific practice of rights- and reason-based argumentation, a practice in which they possessed a comparative advantage over governing elites because of the social legitimacy of those claims. (Gibson 20)

Therefore, for a new interpretation of democracy, society must endorse a critical perspective of democracy, using discourse and questioning. Allowing representative democracy to run amok creates a form of dehumanized hollow-life where the life and culture is sucked out of democracy. Without having questioning and discourse deeply entrenched in democratic culture, individuals give up on the search for truth and continue to accept the imposition of ideology from existing power structures. Furthermore, a decline in the search for truth constructs a paradoxical condition of representative democracy; since representation claims to create more truth by increasing the diversity of the ideas and goals collecting at the voting booth, it creates a trade-off with democratic values in that individuals are distracted by futile efforts at the ballot box rather than discussing issues, finding truth through deliberation, and shaping policy themselves.

Works Cited

Brinkerhoff, Derick W., and Arthur A. Goldsmith. How citizens participate in macroeconomic     policy: International experience and implications for poverty reduction. World        Development 31.4 2003. Print.

Gibson, Christopher; Woolcock, Michael. Empowerment, Deliberative Development and Local

               Level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of Countervailing          Power. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper Series 0807, 2007. Print.

Johnson, David W; Johnson, Roger T. Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution   of psychology. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 6(4), 2000. Print.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.          New York: Viking, 1985. Print.