The Self-Defeating Democracy

Posted by Joshua White on 05.31.2006

Hypothetically it seems a Democratically-elected Congress could add any clause it would like to the Constitution. Similarly, the same Congress could take away any particular other portion. Isn't it then possible for Democracy and the Constitution, working in tandem, to destroy itself?


Ever since President Bush realized that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq (or more correctly, there were no WMDs that we could find) he has pressed the issue to the world that Democracy and Freedom are amazing concepts. You spread Democracy and good things will happen. If you spread Freedom the world will change for the better. Not once in the news have I really heard Democracy questioned. Is it really the best form of government (as opposed to Fascism, Communism, Monarchies, to name a few)? What, if any, are the flaws of Democracy?

I would never deny that that Democracy has it wonderful aspects (our vote meaning something for example). However, I have come to the conclusion that it is profoundly flawed. The problem is that the Democracy, coupled with the Constitution, theoretically allows for the self-destruction of both of these institutions.

All of these notions came to me recently while I was having a talk with a friend about the proposed marriage amendment that Bush tried to pass a few years back. It does not matter which side I took; the point is that this conversation led to a discussion on how amendments to the Constitution are passed. And while on a normal day this would be a very boring subject, for some reason it got me thinking about what could happen if certain changes to the Constitution had enough backing.

For those of you who don't remember high school social studies class why don't we review how amendments can be added to the Constitution.

One of the most brilliant things that the authors of the Constitution added to this document was the ability for it to be changed. Times change and the country might not want to keep the same laws that they have had previously. The founding fathers realized this and put into the Constitution a method for changing how this country is run. I had thought about putting the actual quote here to show how amendments are made, but after reading it even I found it boring. So, in order to stave off ennui and keep you as one of my loyal followers I'll just tell you how it is done.

Essentially there are two way that amendments can be made, though the second has never been used. Each approach has two steps. First the amendment must be proposed. To be proposed the potential amendment must have the backing of two thirds of both houses of the congress. The other method consists in legislatures from two thirds of the states calling for a convention to propose the amendment. Now, once the proposed amendment is officially proposed it then must be ratified (accepted). This requires the approval of 3/4 of the states' legislatures.

Why did I go through all of this? Because I wanted to show you what exactly is needed and what isn't. And as far as I can tell, the founding fathers didn't put anything in the Constitution about what cannot be amended. And I think that this could theoretically be a problem.

One of the first problems is that with Democracy alone bad people can be elected to office. As long as the people want the person in office, Democracy is neutral to who represents the masses. This can have some terrible results. For an easy example, let's look to Palestine. President Bush pushed Democracy to the Palestinians. He pushed the idea of voting, and the freedom to do so. And did they vote? Yes. Freely? Sure. But they empowered a group that has admitted wanting the destruction of a group of people. They have been involved in terrorist activities. Democracy can lead to Hammas.

But that sort of government couldn't happen in this country because we have the Constitution. It gives us rights as citizens. We (citizens, and only we citizens) have the right to free speech because the Constitution says so. So a Hammas-like government, even if they were elected in, couldn't do much because they couldn't infringe on these rights that have been had for centuries.

However, the Congress could legitimately make an amendment in the Constitution that allows for a severe infringement of rights of the people of this country. Now, this seems fairly obvious. For example, some would say that if we were to adopt the marriage amendment this would be an infringement of rights. But we could go much further than this. We could specifically exclude certain races from certain doing certain things. It would only take two amendments to go back to slavery. (One to say that not all races must be treated the same. And the second saying that slavery is permissible.) And this could be done following the rules laid down by the Constitution. From what I can tell anything can be put into the Constitution.

That is the "wonderful" thing about this document. It realizes that the people change and so it must change as well. So, if our country reverts to its racist ways, the Constitution can follow along. And if we were to get a population that wanted Spanish to be its "official langage", the Consitution can oblige.

And this process isn't limited to simply adding new amendments and repealing the later ones. The Bill of Rights is in danger as well. There is nothing in the Constitution (again, as far as I can tell) that makes these amendments special. The freedom of speech, right to bear arms, press...all the good ones could be taken away. This would all be done by representatives that we, the American populace, voted in.

But if this isn't bad enough, there is an even more deleterious effect of Democracy and the Constitution is that it can totally negate itself. While this might not happen in the real world (it is certainly far from practical and highly implausible) it is certainly possible. With this duo, following the laws set down, it could pass that pieces of the Consitution could be negated. This could continue until nothing remains, and the last change would be for the congress to vote in another form of government such as Fascism.

Now, I'm not saying that Democracy is the only form of government that could fall to this sort of problem. The monarch could eventually decide to give up his throne and with his last decree make Democracy the law of the land. Something similar happened in England. Or with a Facist government, the leaders could find that Democracy would be the best for the populace and make it so. Maybe every form of government faces this sort of problem. Perhaps, Winston Churchill was right when he said that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

But what I think is clear is that Democracy is not infallible. This can be seen by looking at Hammas. But even our version of Democracy has its flaws; and they aren't minor either. They could potentially lead to the destruction of government in America as we know it. Sure, America's version of democracy is pretty good. It has lasted for over 200 years. But let's just remember what it is: the lesser of several other evils.

I'm no Constitution scholar. So, I invite anyone who thinks that I'm wrong to write me and tell me why.