You've done well to dismantle some of what you call the typical arguments for democracy. However, in doing so I feel you have used a rather reductivist view of democracy as well as neglected what are perhaps the most important justifications for democracy.
In the context of a state wielding a monopoly over violence, a simple aggregate democracy, a majority vote legitimizing any action, is no more than a tyranny of the majority. However, should we discard democracy for a rule by courts, we would be left with little more than a tyranny of the minority instead.
Democracy cannot and should not be understood as merely voting on matters. While direct democracy may be in line with classical understandings of the term, in modern political discourse democracy is inherently tied together with republican and constitutional ideas. Perhaps the most important core principle is the rule of law, which seems to echo many of the critiques you yourself bring up.
That we live under the rule of law, not the rule of men, is a core part of what is understood in modern times to be a democracy. Government may indeed rule with the mandate of the masses, but its power is not infinite and the people are protected at least from the worst excesses of government tyranny. The liberty of the people, their freedom of conscience, their freedom of speech, their right to a fair trial, etc. are guaranteed in general by a constitution, which the state itself is bound by.
The analogy of democracy between two wolves and a sheep thus falls apart, as the law cannot make such distinctions between people as to benefit some groups at the expense of others, at least not based on any inherent "type" of person. By people's role in society, by their wealth, by their chosen occupation, perhaps, but not by any discriminatory separation. Certainly the majority cannot take away the fundamental rights of the minority, precisely because these rights derive from Reason, and to protect them even government was made subject to them.
Relevant to the enforcement of the rule of law is of course the independence of the judiciary, which plays a crucial role in the functioning of any democracy. So much so that we might argue there cannot be a democracy without the rule of law. The term democracy itself is perhaps too limited, and does not properly describe this government form, while rule of law is perhaps a little general of a term and does not directly describe a state, so if you so prefer I can use the term Rechtsstaat, on which I had meant to write an essay of my own regardless. The word Rechtsstaat is loaned directly from German, but in fact most European languages have a direct equivalent, and I only know English to stick out. It may be translated directly as a "legal state" or "state of law", but this does not truly encompass the meaning of it, as "Recht" refers not to individual laws, but to the concept of law itself and is better translated to "right". Thus it describes a citizen-state where justice prevails. The only democracy worth taking seriously, and the only thing I would ever refer to as a proper democracy is the Rechsstaat.
This also neatly resolves the problem of "democratically abolishing democracy" in that it is impossible. The rights of citizens are not for sale, even voluntarily. Individuals cannot give away their rights, why should society be allowed to do so, collectively? A relevant philosophy here is also that of radical democracy. Radical democracy is not a procedural philosophy. It is not concerned primarily with reaching ends through elections or legitimising them by popularity. It holds democracy as a system itself as a moral good, and in a rather consequentialist sense any action taken to advance democracy is also good. Taking direct non-electoral action for the enfranchisement of women or minority groups is a quintessential radical democratic action for example, but the establishment of democracy itself, and the overthrowal of tyranny, is an act of radical democracy.
Another philosophy that is very relevant is deliberative democracy. The idea of deliberative democracy is not that a majority vote inherently guarantees a good outcome, but rather that decisions should be taken after deliberation, in which different parties and interests have been genuinely heard. Deliberative democracy also aims at decision by consensus to the extent possible. Thus when politicians from different parties and and backgrounds come together to discuss issues, and hear out experts, corportations, environmental groups, trade unions, etc. this can be seen as a genuine deliberation seeking to understand the best and most reasonable course of action for the whole of society. In a lot of ways this is the perfect ideal of enlightened democratic decision making.
It is good to be more cynical regarding the realities, but it is also sensible in this regard to see the virtues and potential of democracy for good decision making.
Of course a crucial part of deliberative democracy is representation. Here consensus-seeking parliamentary democracies excel far more than a system such as that of the US. However, it's worth speaking of representation itself. Society can be imagined as being made up of various overlapping interest groups. These interests may be class interests, regional interests, the interests of a particular industry, etc. We might imagine that each group engages in some form of rent-seeking behaviour, seeking their own benefit. The question is, is there anything wrong with this? If we had a self-serving aristocracy, this would certainly be a problem, but with different interest represented, is the outcome not inherently some compromise of these interests? Is it not also the task of government to find such compromises, to try to best advance the interests of each group, and thus the whole of society? Much as we might argue in a market economy that each individual's pursuit of selfish interest, within a reasonable legal framework, leads to an overall prosperity, one might argue that the pursuit of self-interest though politics leads to prosperous compromise.
Relevant to this is also the accountability of decision makers, on the one hand to their constitutents, and on the other hand to the judiciary and the law.
Finally, democracy may at times make poor decisions, but is this a problem either? So long as the basic principles of Reason are safeguarded, so long as government acts within its legal limits, is it not entitled to make mistakes? Do we as individuals not err and falter? Why should we expect more from governments that represent us?
Democracy is not just about citizenship and engagement, it is also a matter of duty and responsibility. For a society to be responsible for itself and its own well-being is a beautiful thing. To be allowed to make ones own mistakes and to learn from them is a part of sovereignty. It is a part of adulthood. A mature society cannot expect to have its hand held and to be shielded from the consequences of its actions. Any kind of judicial oligarchy, even should it function satisfactorily, would inherently infantilise its population and deprive from them not only engagement, but growth as citizens and as a citizen-society. It would create a weak and apathetic society of children who are incapable of taking their fate into their own hands. It is not a coddling that does a society any good.
We may argue that an immature, unenlightened society requires a strong guiding hand and it cannot be otherwise, perhaps that is so, but at some point a society must learn to take responsibility for its own future as well. In line with this, when if there are arbitrary and nonsensical laws drafted and passed by citizens, then it is also the duty of citizens to overturn them.
Thank you for the engagement! I'll try to respond the best I can.
The distinction I believe is important isn't rule of majority vs. minority, but right vs. wrong. Political authority can only be justified by what is right, which is determined by reason.
And while courts have ensured that certain natural rights, which aren't explicitly listed in the constitution, are still guaranteed (substantive due process rights, privacy rights, expansive equal protection rights, etc.), they haven't similarly secured economic rights (see my discussion on Williamson v. Lee Optical).
I'd disagree that currently the law can't make distinctions between people. So long as the target of the legislation isn't a protected group, the government is free to create legislation that affects that group (graduated income taxes, special interest group legislation etc.).
Basically, there is a reasonable range of legislation that the government is morally authorized to adopt and enforce. Laws outside that range should be restricted. If a democratic majority creates legislation outside that reasonable range, experts (judges, admin agencies etc.) should correct it.
Let me know if this addresses your concern, and if not, I will address it in a later piece.
You've done well to dismantle some of what you call the typical arguments for democracy. However, in doing so I feel you have used a rather reductivist view of democracy as well as neglected what are perhaps the most important justifications for democracy.
In the context of a state wielding a monopoly over violence, a simple aggregate democracy, a majority vote legitimizing any action, is no more than a tyranny of the majority. However, should we discard democracy for a rule by courts, we would be left with little more than a tyranny of the minority instead.
Democracy cannot and should not be understood as merely voting on matters. While direct democracy may be in line with classical understandings of the term, in modern political discourse democracy is inherently tied together with republican and constitutional ideas. Perhaps the most important core principle is the rule of law, which seems to echo many of the critiques you yourself bring up.
That we live under the rule of law, not the rule of men, is a core part of what is understood in modern times to be a democracy. Government may indeed rule with the mandate of the masses, but its power is not infinite and the people are protected at least from the worst excesses of government tyranny. The liberty of the people, their freedom of conscience, their freedom of speech, their right to a fair trial, etc. are guaranteed in general by a constitution, which the state itself is bound by.
The analogy of democracy between two wolves and a sheep thus falls apart, as the law cannot make such distinctions between people as to benefit some groups at the expense of others, at least not based on any inherent "type" of person. By people's role in society, by their wealth, by their chosen occupation, perhaps, but not by any discriminatory separation. Certainly the majority cannot take away the fundamental rights of the minority, precisely because these rights derive from Reason, and to protect them even government was made subject to them.
Relevant to the enforcement of the rule of law is of course the independence of the judiciary, which plays a crucial role in the functioning of any democracy. So much so that we might argue there cannot be a democracy without the rule of law. The term democracy itself is perhaps too limited, and does not properly describe this government form, while rule of law is perhaps a little general of a term and does not directly describe a state, so if you so prefer I can use the term Rechtsstaat, on which I had meant to write an essay of my own regardless. The word Rechtsstaat is loaned directly from German, but in fact most European languages have a direct equivalent, and I only know English to stick out. It may be translated directly as a "legal state" or "state of law", but this does not truly encompass the meaning of it, as "Recht" refers not to individual laws, but to the concept of law itself and is better translated to "right". Thus it describes a citizen-state where justice prevails. The only democracy worth taking seriously, and the only thing I would ever refer to as a proper democracy is the Rechsstaat.
This also neatly resolves the problem of "democratically abolishing democracy" in that it is impossible. The rights of citizens are not for sale, even voluntarily. Individuals cannot give away their rights, why should society be allowed to do so, collectively? A relevant philosophy here is also that of radical democracy. Radical democracy is not a procedural philosophy. It is not concerned primarily with reaching ends through elections or legitimising them by popularity. It holds democracy as a system itself as a moral good, and in a rather consequentialist sense any action taken to advance democracy is also good. Taking direct non-electoral action for the enfranchisement of women or minority groups is a quintessential radical democratic action for example, but the establishment of democracy itself, and the overthrowal of tyranny, is an act of radical democracy.
Another philosophy that is very relevant is deliberative democracy. The idea of deliberative democracy is not that a majority vote inherently guarantees a good outcome, but rather that decisions should be taken after deliberation, in which different parties and interests have been genuinely heard. Deliberative democracy also aims at decision by consensus to the extent possible. Thus when politicians from different parties and and backgrounds come together to discuss issues, and hear out experts, corportations, environmental groups, trade unions, etc. this can be seen as a genuine deliberation seeking to understand the best and most reasonable course of action for the whole of society. In a lot of ways this is the perfect ideal of enlightened democratic decision making.
It is good to be more cynical regarding the realities, but it is also sensible in this regard to see the virtues and potential of democracy for good decision making.
Of course a crucial part of deliberative democracy is representation. Here consensus-seeking parliamentary democracies excel far more than a system such as that of the US. However, it's worth speaking of representation itself. Society can be imagined as being made up of various overlapping interest groups. These interests may be class interests, regional interests, the interests of a particular industry, etc. We might imagine that each group engages in some form of rent-seeking behaviour, seeking their own benefit. The question is, is there anything wrong with this? If we had a self-serving aristocracy, this would certainly be a problem, but with different interest represented, is the outcome not inherently some compromise of these interests? Is it not also the task of government to find such compromises, to try to best advance the interests of each group, and thus the whole of society? Much as we might argue in a market economy that each individual's pursuit of selfish interest, within a reasonable legal framework, leads to an overall prosperity, one might argue that the pursuit of self-interest though politics leads to prosperous compromise.
Relevant to this is also the accountability of decision makers, on the one hand to their constitutents, and on the other hand to the judiciary and the law.
Finally, democracy may at times make poor decisions, but is this a problem either? So long as the basic principles of Reason are safeguarded, so long as government acts within its legal limits, is it not entitled to make mistakes? Do we as individuals not err and falter? Why should we expect more from governments that represent us?
Democracy is not just about citizenship and engagement, it is also a matter of duty and responsibility. For a society to be responsible for itself and its own well-being is a beautiful thing. To be allowed to make ones own mistakes and to learn from them is a part of sovereignty. It is a part of adulthood. A mature society cannot expect to have its hand held and to be shielded from the consequences of its actions. Any kind of judicial oligarchy, even should it function satisfactorily, would inherently infantilise its population and deprive from them not only engagement, but growth as citizens and as a citizen-society. It would create a weak and apathetic society of children who are incapable of taking their fate into their own hands. It is not a coddling that does a society any good.
We may argue that an immature, unenlightened society requires a strong guiding hand and it cannot be otherwise, perhaps that is so, but at some point a society must learn to take responsibility for its own future as well. In line with this, when if there are arbitrary and nonsensical laws drafted and passed by citizens, then it is also the duty of citizens to overturn them.
Thank you for the engagement! I'll try to respond the best I can.
The distinction I believe is important isn't rule of majority vs. minority, but right vs. wrong. Political authority can only be justified by what is right, which is determined by reason.
And while courts have ensured that certain natural rights, which aren't explicitly listed in the constitution, are still guaranteed (substantive due process rights, privacy rights, expansive equal protection rights, etc.), they haven't similarly secured economic rights (see my discussion on Williamson v. Lee Optical).
I'd disagree that currently the law can't make distinctions between people. So long as the target of the legislation isn't a protected group, the government is free to create legislation that affects that group (graduated income taxes, special interest group legislation etc.).
Basically, there is a reasonable range of legislation that the government is morally authorized to adopt and enforce. Laws outside that range should be restricted. If a democratic majority creates legislation outside that reasonable range, experts (judges, admin agencies etc.) should correct it.
Let me know if this addresses your concern, and if not, I will address it in a later piece.