Democracy is the worst form of government

In 1947, Winston Churchill declared to the British House of Commons that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” His words, while possibly being intended humorously, ring true today in numerous ways. Representative democracy, which Churchill criticised, is a form of government where the general population vote for a representative to make decisions on behalf of them in a central governing body. The MMP system in New Zealand is a form of representative democracy. The Roman Republic pioneered this system which became a highly regarded form of governance in western society. Churchill was not the first, nor the last, to point out that democracy, a triumph of modern society, is also systematically flawed - its values that are its appeal also create its problems. To paraphrase Walter Lippmann, famous anti democracy journalist, “democracy relies on public opinion, which is fundamentally narrow, fractured and cannot make the best decision”. This begs the question is our representative democracy still fit to serve our population? Is the democratic process really at fault or is the issue how we participate?

In theory, representative democracy promotes equality, but in practice, it hinders any chance of collectivism, partly due to the rise of the Neoliberal movement of the 1980s, which promoted individualism above all else. Since then, society has been breaking down into distinct factions of thought, each with its own agendas, interests, and values. This in turn affects our democratic process and the way in which individuals act politically.
The equal vote is the of the key principle of representative democracy. This means each person’s vote for a representative is no more important than that of the next individual; therefore, the values and ideals they vote for have the same weight as another’s vote. The resulting outcome is a system that while trying to hear everyone, hears no one. These diverse interests, seen as equally authentic, are all represented creating an environment where political consensus and therefore action ceases to exist. What follows is a stagnant government that, frankly, infuriates everyone. Sound familiar? Furthermore, this creates mistrust and anger towards the government, as it becomes a scapegoat for the systemic failures of democracy. We vote for progress, expect change and receive deadlock. The outcome is that the remnants of the power system that once served the public interest, under new stresses, break down. To summarise, fractured political paralysis produces a world where we are more divided than ever.

While the absence of collective direction that fragments our political interest wreaks havoc on any clear decision, this raises another question: should the general population make political decisions. In late 2021, the then Labour government received huge backlash on the then Three Waters Legislation, eventually leading to its repeal. Since then, many districts, opposed to the bill, find themselves in a situation that would have been prevented through its implementation. Local councils, who were unwilling to give up power, are now facing massive costs to repair degraded water systems. This is a pointed reminder of the population's incompetence in making choices.

Representative democracy, which is public-focused, and aims to voice our wants and needs, overlooks one vital issue: citizens are not able to make the decision about who makes the decision. Simply put, I believe the average joe shouldn’t be charged with appointing the central governing body. Reasons for this range from our human susceptibility to advertising to our narrow knowledge, but perhaps the most concerning is the neoliberal cult of the interests of the individual over the collective. This exacerbates the break down into political factions, which is further affecting the efficacy of democracy. Furthermore, representatives who seek to be in power, campaign on policies that directly benefit the individual rather than the collective. For example, the promise of tax breaks relieves individuals but reduces public spending on services benefiting everyone. How can democracy create the best outcomes for society at large when decisions cater to a population of one? Ultimately, self-interest, magnified by the democratic process, leads to outcomes of short-term flashiness and destructive long-term consequences.

Beyond human self-interest, representative democracy is increasingly futile due to the narrow scope of public knowledge. When the founding fathers of the United States set out to establish a system of government, democracy made sense. People lived in small communities and primarily cared about the things directly affecting said community. This was typical throughout the western world. Today, the range of issues and events that affect communities is rapidly widening due to globalisation. The policies that we vote on now vary from climate change to oil shortage to foreign aid, immigration to homelessness. Hence, the problem - we are not equipped to absorb and process the necessary and relevant information. We are expected to form opinions and emotional responses to concerns that are outside our community and that do not directly affect us. How can our self-focused worldview ever lead to understanding of vastly distant problems? However, democracy demands we do. To make matters worse, any political idea we form is coloured by a social and historical lens that is narrow and unique. Moreover, the various media are shaped by the world view of those producing them – Zuckerberg and Musk, anyone?

In short, how can we ever trust our decisions on governance with such narrow worldviews with democracy requiring knowledge we are unable to fully comprehend? And are the criticisms above an argument against democracy or a reminder of its fragility?