Does Democracy Still Matter?

Recent years have been rough ones for democracy.

Both the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential elections had disputed results as members of both political parties refused to concede they had lost on legitimate grounds. Abroad, there have been 15 straight years of receding democracy, which means more countries democratically regressing than improving, according to the watchdog Freedom House. With these struggles in mind, some in the United States are wondering whether we remain a nation that is committed to its founding democratic principles.

This question was the subject of the Faith and Law “Friday Forum” webinar entitled “Does Democracy Still Matter? Exploration of Democracy in a Divided Country and World.” The forum of Christian Congressional staff was presented by Nicole Bibbins Sedaca, Deputy Director of Georgetown University’s Master’s in Foreign Service, who gave a full throated defense of American democracy.

Sedaca highlighted many ways in which “democracy seems to be on the ropes.” In addition to Freedom House’s reports of backsliding democracies, she also noted how authoritarian nations including China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and North Korea increasingly threaten global stability. Whether the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey or Russian President Vladimir Putin directing the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, today’s despots know few bounds. 

The only force in the world able to stand up against non-democratic regimes is the United States. But, for that to happen we need to be willing to interrogate our own ideas about democracy. Whether or not we endorse democratic principles for their own sake, or purely for their results, “is a real existential question” according to Sedaca. 

In her defense of democracy, Sedaca said she believes it is “the most moral system, the best governing system, the most capable system of advancing American interests and the most aligned with Christianity.” As she put it, democracy is a set of institutions, rules and values that talk about respect for the human rights of all people. Even if two people in a democracy do not agree on everything, at least they should be able to agree that they both deserve some voice in deciding the course of their nation.

Beyond this, a post-WWII international order has been built around “democratic principles, universal respect for human rights and the need to have institutions based on accountability, transparency and the rule of law.” As faith in the intrinsic value of representative and participatory government erodes, so too do these ideas and institutions.

Sedaca’s most salient point is that there is intrinsic value in everyone being able to politically participate, regardless of outcome. This point, however, is exactly what seems to be fracturing our republic. In contrast to a generation ago when there seemed to be unconditional commitment to democracy, nowadays more Americans only believe in open and fair elections if their side wins.

As Sedaca described it: “democracy is not a guaranteed win for anyone. I wish it were, but it’s not. It’s not a guaranteed win, but a guaranteed playing level. It is not always aligned with a particular view and it doesn’t always function perfectly.”

This is a hard pill to swallow, though. According to Sedaca’s reasoning there isn’t an extreme towards which democracy in America could tend towards that would warrant the curtailing of any democratic features. At the seminar’s conclusion, one respondent asked how Sedaca would address conservatives content with a President who both abolishes Congress and also completely illegalizes abortion.

Sedaca responded that it’s possible to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” That is, it’s possible to be committed to pro-life policies, as she said she is, while also being committed to the tenets of democracy. In the long run, those who would seek to advance their political cause at the expense of democracy will only harm themselves. 

While she acknowledged that democracy isn’t a perfect system, this is because “human beings aren’t perfect, but at least we will have a system designed to deal with flawed human beings.”  She expressed arguments similar to those of  Peter Berkowitz, a conservative political philosophy professor at Stanford, against the small but growing postliberal movement. The advantage of our federal constitutional liberal democratic republic is that it’s specifically designed with the flawed nature of humanity in mind.

As Sedaca pointed out, “the alternative to democracy is persecution” and this is borne out by experience. There are very few examples of nondemocratic illiberal governments being preferable to democratic regimes, whether it’s in Asia, Europe or America. Even if democracy is “on the ropes,” it’s still clearly preferable to live in a democracy than China, Iran or Russia because even when you lose an election you can always try again in a few years.