How Can We Guard Against the Fall of Democracy, and the Rise of Tyranny?
"Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs."
- Abraham Lincoln, in his address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27, 1838, titled "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions"
DONALD TRUMP AND THE EROSION OF DEMOCRACY
Perhaps never before in the history of the United States have the institutions of our democracy - the press, the judiciary, our intelligence services, and even our military - been subject to attacks, as have been perpetuated by Donald Trump. Regardless of the results of the November 2020 Presidential election, the damage to our institutions will linger. Political discord will continue as politicians continue to maneuver for power. Social unrest will continue to lie under the surface, from many quarters, occasionally bursting into view.
The danger lies not just from the potential for Donald Trump to be elected, but also from the precedent Donald Trump has established. Others may well seek to seize control of the agendas of our political parties. As has occurred in civilizations past, the erosion of institutional norms may well continue, leaving citizens longing for stability. And into such a void may well emerge the autocrat, with the ability to further reshape the institutions of our democracy to further his or her own political interests. If the lessons of history are ignored, the United States of America be headed for autocratic rule.
LESSONS FROM HISTORY
Throughout the history of many civilizations, charismatic political leaders had emerged who, through their actions, had usurped democratic forms of government. These individuals often arose during times of significant social or economic disruptions.
The Fall of the Roman Republic
Many historians point to Ancient Rome, whose republic lasting more than four centuries was followed by centuries of dictatorships. Hindered by growing wealth inequality, political gridlock and violence, the subset of citizens of Rome who were at the time afforded political representation eventually acceded to the death of their democracy.
This transformation to autocratic rule did not occur overnight. Rather, it occurred over decades, and began when those who held political office in the Roman Senate perceived their roles with heightened political importance, and they became arrogant and largely unaccountable for their actions. Efforts at reform were blocked by those unwilling to relinquish their privileged positions in Roman society.
Eventually the Romans embraced Augustus, who offered stability and the end to fear and dangers (many of whom Augustus had himself fueled), rather than the continuation of decades of political discord.
When Loudness Triumphs Over Reason
In the more recent era, we have seen how the vociferous words and outspoken opinions of emerging autocrats often have become persuasive to many of those within broader electorates, especially those individuals who were pliable and gullible. Couched in terms of language that individual values would be either preserved or restored, followers in the populace emerged. Other supporters emerged, especially after months and years of hearing statements that were drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently enough that such statements – despite often being untrue and offensive to democratic values – were believed.
Firewood for the resulting “movements” has often been provided by powerful interests – other politicians, wealthy individuals and business interests – who foresaw a way to support the emerging political leader in return for greater power, maintenance of power, or the furtherance or shift toward government policies which further enhanced their own interests and wealth.
Manipulation, Via the Fear of Contagion
Gifted with oratory, and often a knack for acting, emerging political leaders of this vein often tapped into the fears of many in the electorate, and (like Augustus of Ancient Rome) often worked hard to heighten such fears. Such leaders often manipulated their followers via the fear of contagion, which analogizes those not within their group to possessing of deviant qualities or impurities or dangers that could cause them harm.
Such leaders were also known for their subtly, and often quickly, shifting gears to ensure that they sold themselves politically to the masses. Especially during the times of their early rise to power, as such leaders sought out the positions that would most appeal to their potential followers.
A Pattern of Lies and Deceit
Yet, lacking the personality trait of “agreeableness,” such leaders would also frequently resort to lies. Despite their untruths, their followers would still embrace these leaders, arguing that the strength of the individual in standing up for them and tackling their fears (which were often created, or substantially amplified, by the leader’s own rhetoric) more than overcame any perceived character flaws of that individual.
Those With Narcissistic Personality Disorder Promote Themselves as "Special" and "Protectors"
Many emerging autocrats, such as Adolph Hitler, often possessed the hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder – a public persona evidencing grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, a need for admiration, and a belief that they should afforded special treatment. While self-centered, manipulative, and arrogant, such individuals would portray themselves as the “only solution” to a set of people’s problems, and would promote themselves as “protectors” of their band of followers.
In recent decades psychological science has discerned, through observation, that the foundational tendencies in human personality that can be discerned from examination will significantly influence the future decisions and actions of political leaders. Despite the greater ability to categorize and express the level of human personality traits, the field of psychiatry has by and large resisted invitations to provide evidence to the public on the personality traits of current and emerging political leaders.
Recent Autocracies: Putin, Orban
The transformation of “elected officials” into authoritarian rulers was demonstrated in recent historical events, such as power accumulated by Russia’s Vladimir Putin, including effecting constitutional changes that would lead him to maintain power for potentially more decades to come, despite being a criminal mastermind who has disregarded the rule of law to amass what may be the world’s greatest fortune.
Emulating Putin’s path to autocratic rule has been Viktor Orban, the strongman of Hungary. Elected, as many such emerging autocrats are, on a wave of fear and discontent, Orban has attacked and undermined the media, the judiciary, civil society, the rule of law, and the protection of minority rights. He has undermined the basic fairness of elections, packed his administration and the courts with cronies, and made other moves to consolidate power.
The Authoritarian Wannabee: Trump
Another prime example of an authoritarian ruler wannabe is Donald Trump. He has frequently disrespected the independent judiciary of the United States, demeaned the press, incited violence, used the legal system to spare investigations and punishments of his associates while launching investigations into political opponents (often based on debunked conspiracy theories), and failed to maintain a separation between his own economic interests and the affairs of his office.
As many would-be autocratic leaders have done, Trump has attacked the validity of election processes, and the election results themselves. He has touted his freedom from oversight, and used delays in judicial proceedings to shelter the activities of both himself and those who serve him from scrutiny. And, when any of his transgressions are called out, he asserts that only he knows what is right or wrong, and he lies rather than admit to any mistake he may have made.
It is easy to tear down an institution. Just as it is easy to oppose a current or proposed law, or regulation. What makes effective leaders is seeking to modify, or transform, existing structures to make them better, through well-crafted proposals that, when exposed to scrutiny, will eventually gain support and be enacted. Yet, authoritarians, such as Trump, nearly always just tear down existing structures, with no real plan for improvements or replacements.
Similar to the earlier conflicts in Rome, that eventually led to its fall, the damage done by Trump to the democratic institutions of the United States will be felt for decades to come. Even this assumes Trump is not re-elected. As of the time of this writing (Aug. 2020), many political observers greatly fear the further damage Trump could cause, either prior to the 2020 elections as well as thereafter.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Should Political Parties Protect Us From Potential Tyrants?
To prevent the rise of political leaders with personality disorders that made them substantially likely to abuse the power of their office and seek to extend their rule, the principle might be adopted that, during the process of elections for national offices, political parties must undertake formal psychological reviews of all candidates. Political parties could possess the authority, and the duty, to prevent any candidate deemed unfit for political office, by reason of psychological traits that could lead to autocratic rule, from appearing on the ballot as a representative of such party.
There will be resistance to such a concept, of course. There is something to be said for the right of any person to "run for office." Yet, our Constitution does not address, directly, the role of political parties, and their function as a potential aid in the continuation of democracy. Nor does a person's exclusion from a political party mean that the person could not run for office - either in another party, or by forming a new political party.
Such a new grant of authority, or responsibility, to political parties is not, in itself, a sufficient deterrent to the accumulation of power by an individual, or a group of individuals. Other measures must be considered.
Should Limits Be Placed Upon Monetary Political Contributions?
The control over political institutions in the United States of America by monied interests, that increased substantially in the late 20th Century, and accelerated in the early 21st Century (in significant part due to the Citizens United decision), needs to be addressed - likely via a Constitutional amendment.
Under such an amendment, limited public financing of all elections would take place.
In addition, no organization or corporation could utilize its funds to promote the election of any particular candidate for national, state or local office; this prohibition extends even to unions and other not-for-profit entities. Political action committees that support, directly or in a significant way indirectly, specific political candidates or political parties, would be banned - or at least severely restricted.
Finally, each individual citizen would only be permitted to contribute a maximum monetary amount to the campaigns of all political candidates (or to the support or non-support of any political issue) in any one calendar year. The amount would be not greater than five percent of the median annual income of the average U.S. citizen.
Should Government Agency Inspector Generals Be Appointed by the U.S. Congress?
The model of separation of powers, between an executive branch, a legislative branch, and an independent judiciary, is seen by the experts to be an essential bulwark against the emergence of an authoritarian ruler. However, the ability of the legislative branch to oversee the actions of the executive branch, in the current government of the United States, is now seen to be weak, as a result of many actions undertaken by Trump that have challenged political norms.
One potential solution is for inspectors general in government agencies would be appointed, and be subject to removal from office, by the U.S. Congress. Again, this may require a Constitutional amendment.
Enforce Oversight of the Executive Branch via Timely Judicial Resolution of Disputes.
Additionally, it might be determined that all executive department officials, excluding only the President, would be compelled to testify before Congress, and would not be able to refuse testimony on the grounds of executive of other privilege. In addition, Congressional subpoenas for documents from the executive branch would be required to be honored.
To ensure that disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch regarding the propriety of such requests for testimony or documents, or regarding other disputes between the two branches, judicial review of such disputes could be accelerated. For example, any dispute brought before the D.C. Court of Appeals (acting as a court of original jurisdiction) should be decided within forty days. Any appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court of any such decisions should then be filed, briefed and argued not later than forty days following the D.C. Court of Appeals decision (assuming the Supremes agree to hear such an appeal).
Should Term Limits Be Instituted for National Political Offices?
Even with the changes noted above, there would be no guarantee that democratic institutions would be attacked by an emerging autocrat who hijacked the institutions of power. Accordingly, term limits should be applied to prevent those with political power using such power to perpetuate and expand their influence. In this fashion, the ascension to political office would, it was hoped, be viewed as the opportunity to serve the public good, rather than the accumulation and preservation of political power.
For example, perhaps no person should hold political office as a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative for a term exceeding six years, within that person’s lifetime. But, as an exception, a U.S. Representative could run for office as a U.S. Senator, provided that the total time spent in both positions would not exceed twelve years.
Additionally, the term of office of the President and Vice-President could be limited to a single term of four years. A Vice-President could, however, run for office as President and succeed to that position following her or his tenure as Vice-President.
Regardless of the foregoing, in no instance could any person serve in the positions of U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, Vice-President, or President, for a combined term exceeding twelve years.
In this manner, national political office would no longer be a lifetime vocation, but rather the opportunity for citizens to rise up in the service of their country for brief periods of time.
FOSTERING THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE
No doubt some readers of this post will view same as an anti-Republican, anti-Trump diatribe. Yet, dangers can arise from either the left or the right.
The present danger is Donald Trump. He has eroded our democracy. In this wake are other political leaders, from either major political party (or perhaps a new political party), who may seize upon the disruption to our political norms.
There are also those, from both major political parties, who continue to seek to perpetuate their own political power. Some do so not to serve the people, but rather to retain power. Often such individuals are supported by monied interests. Huge political contributions by the wealthy, and by corporations, fuel the re-election of demagogues in political venues around the country, transform reasoned discourse into mere promotion of special interests, and sometimes leads to corruption.
We must begin the steps to return this republic to a representative democracy - in which the interests represented are those of individual citizens. And in which service in national office is not a right, nor a tradition, nor a means to accumulate personal power - but rather the opportunity and responsibility to serve the people.
In his speech of 1838, Abraham Lincoln also stated: "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Let us renew our passion for democracy. Let us foster the discussion of these, and other ideas, that will strengthen our democracy over time, and prevent its descent into autocratic rule or control by powerful interests. Let us restore the principles that form the foundations of our democracy, through concerted action over time. Let us to be silent, for to do so could, as Lincoln warned so long ago, cause our own destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please respect our readers by not posting commercial advertisements nor critical reviews of any particular firm or individual. Thank you.