Opinion: On maintaining a stable democracy

As we prepare to celebrate 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, many in our nation are fearful that the very future of the United States of America is being threatened by national governing failures, disregard for constitutional safeguards and heightened political conflict among our citizenry. All nation-states, regardless of their type of governance — authoritarian or nonauthoritarian — face a continuous challenge of viability or stability. The type of governance serves to dictate the measures that those in power might pursue to maintain nation-state stability which requires a balancing of societal demands with sufficient governing responses. If societal demands for governmental policy responses begin to greatly exceed the capacity of the governing structure to respond, instability will result and the state may collapse.

Highly authoritarian or totalitarian governments rely on extreme measures of population control to temper societal demands so the machinery of the state has fewer demands to resolve. This is done using or threatening the use of force or violence and by politicizing all human activity including family life, the work place, the school and leisure time. The citizen simply is not allowed to be free of constant government intrusion. Through this extensive calculated state involvement in the lives of all citizens, the state can shape the very beliefs and thoughts of the citizens. The citizen is taught to temper his or her expectations of the state and the state in turn benefits from fewer demands to address. Totalitarian regimes seek to secure a closed society free of outside influence for fear the citizenry might be influenced to expect more from those who govern. The greatest threat to totalitarian regimes is the possibility of some internal opponents gaining control of enough tools of violence to topple the regime.

Extensive use of force and calculated intrusion into the daily affairs of the citizenry are not acceptable means of promoting stability in non-authoritarian or democratic forms of government. Democratic governments may rely upon criminal and civil laws to restrict certain proscribed human behavior but extensive use of force or violence to control the population is not compatible with democratic principles. Likewise, citizens within a democracy enjoy relative freedom from state intrusion into their daily routines. Democratic regimes promote open societies thus the expectations and demands of the citizenry become many and varied with time. Citizens within a democracy are ordinarily not satisfied with the state simply providing a scheme to protect against external enemies and internal wrongdoers as is true with highly authoritarian regimes. Citizens within a democratic state frequently insist that the state regulate internal economic, political and social forces that menace their health, welfare, safety and morals.

Citizens within a democracy may also insist that the state recognizes the dignity of all people and provide a safety net for those people who find themselves in need of assistance. In brief, democratic states must anticipate a greater quantity and variety of citizen demands to address than what is tolerated in highly authoritarian states.

Democratic states must therefore have the capacity to manage these many and varied demands, or the state may fail to maintain basic viability or stability. Democracies have the added challenge of having to adhere to certain constitutional ways or means of doing things in addressing the volume of demands such as respecting freedom of expression, political equality, majority rule, periodic free elections and prescribed limitations on the power of those who govern.

Democracies rely greatly on nongovernmental institutions and organizations to manage the volume of demands. Political parties and interest groups may serve to aggregate countless individual demands into a more clearly defined and manageable number of demands. Civil society, with all its volunteer civic organizations, may reduce the demands on government by providing food, housing, mental and physical health care, and recreational outlets etc. in response to the wants and needs of citizens. With fewer demands to resolve, the democratic government can better remain viable. Failure to nurture a strong civil society within a democracy will result in a greater quantity and variety of demands being brought to bear on the machinery of government which, in turn, may negatively affect the effectiveness of the government in responding to those demands.

Democratic governments seek to be viewed as legitimate by the citizenry to maintain stability. Some level of political socialization plays a role in democracies achieving legitimacy. We are taught in our families and in our schools to respect authority and that it is better to obey than to disobey. In addition, we are groomed to be patriotic using state symbols (the flag, Mount Rushmore, George Wahington’s portrait etc.) and tales of honest Abe and truthful George. We are also encouraged to be active citizens in serving our community and voting. Citizens who feel that they are part of the community are generally more satisfied with their station in life.

Political socialization has its limits within democracies. Government effectiveness in addressing and resolving the many and varied citizen demands while relying upon constitutional means of governing is the real key to stability in a democracy. If the citizenry is satisfied that those governing are effectively resolving citizen demands using the prescribed means, the stability of a democratic state is secured. If those governing fail to effectively address the many and varied citizen demands or resort to extralegal means in pursuance of those objectives, the very stability of a democratic state is threatened.

Individual economic well-being is a common demand in democratic nations. Democratic governments might respond to this demand through the institutionalization of either socialist or capitalist economies or some blending of the two as is the case in our nation. Individual economic well-being does not require an equal distribution of wealth, but it does require that the government fosters an economic environment that ensures that even the least wealthy among us experience economic adequacy.

Excess concentration of wealth may deprive the least wealthy of a sense of adequacy which may result in more citizens challenging the effectiveness of the government. In addition, an excess concentration of wealth can lead to an accompanying concentration and abuse of political power. An abuse of political power, in turn, can lead to more citizens expressing and acting on the failure of government to protect them from the abuses.

I remain optimistic that “We the People” will insist that those who govern, now and in the future, will recommit themselves to democratic means of governing and improve government effectiveness in addressing the many needs of all Americans. If my optimism is well founded, our future generations will enjoy a stable and viable democratic nation state with its blessings of liberty that our founders and past generations of citizens sought to create and preserve.