How is representative democracy working out for us in the modern world?

The concept of democracy depends on citizens who understand the issues and the way things work. Representative democracy was born of a recognition that not all citizens can have such an understanding, but that there are a few people who are intelligent enough and wise enough to have that understanding of the world as it became more complex and more integrated (a republican federation). These few — leaders — would represent the interests of all of their constituents in a near-democracy.

But that was a world in which the biggest issues were farming, and manufacture and trade of basic goods. That was a world in which the most complex machines were precursors to the cotton gin (patented in 1793). That was a world that could be understood by intelligent and thoughtful people (in that day, of course, that would mean males).

That was also a time at the beginning of what would become a science and technology dominated world. Science was deepening and broadening in scope. Chemistry and physics were about to take off. It was blossoming as a source of understanding of how the world worked and, through technological exploitation, increasing the complexity of the human-built world. As this world became more complex and more dependent on technological advancement the ability for the common person with not much more than a high school education to understand their world (while making a living) could not keep up with the change.

Presumably the leaders, however, did still understand the issues and processes. The politics of representative democracy were and are based on geographical considerations. This is quite natural in a world of agriculture and low levels of distant communications and trade. The representative was tied to the geography to best represent the citizens of that region. As we moved into the industrial age the relationship  between governance and geography became less clear. Society was becoming more complex and travel, particularly with the invention of the automobile and the distilling of gasoline, became less restrictive. Cities were growing and people moved from region to region.  Still, the influence of science on society was not beyond the comprehension of those who chose a life of public service. Presidents like Hoover and Roosevelt (FDR) could readily understand the implications of electric power generation from great dams (Hoover and Grand Coulee). The issues were still oriented around people who, themselves were still capable of understanding the work they did, even if they were marginalized with respect to the whole process (think of Charlie Chaplain's "Modern Times"). Most work, in fact, involved trade skills in which the worker could see and understand his or her contribution. But the direction of change was starting to emerge. Politicians needed to understand the concerns of their still-geographically oriented constituencies, even while acknowledging the inherent conflicts between some regions - a competition for resources. Tensions were building in the 1930s and early 1940s.

Then came WWII and everything changed radically.

The science and technology outcomes of WWII were mind bending. The realms of science - atomic fission and bombs, chemicals like plastics, computers, and RADAR were far beyond any ordinary citizen. Indeed scientists themselves found it necessary to specialize. But most importantly, the public servants could no longer understand even a small part of how the world worked. One very under appreciated development during the war was the mathematical realm known as operations research. OR, as it is called, uses computational models to solve complex problems, usually attempting to find optimal solutions. An interesting aspect of OR is that it frequently produces results that can be counterintuitive. This aspect meant that once people were accustomed to the successes of OR, they became dependent on machine-based decision making. OR was quickly adopted by management as businesses were starting to grow to enormous sizes. Computers were adopted for more mundane tasks such as accounting, allowing corporations to handle unprecedented scales of sales and purchases. More and more of the jobs in business became opaque with respect to what the real products and services of the organization were.

People do 'something' for a living. They are given routines to follow. They have checklists to tick off. They do what they do and they get a check at the end of the week. How can anyone say what the relationship is between their check and what the did that week. In today's mechanical world there is little connection between effort and effect. Moreover, they are educated to do what they do. They are not educated to understand the world or how it works.

Citizens today have little to no comprehension of the important scientific knowledge needed to understand how and why things are happening. All they are left with today are "feelings" about their lives, their situations. All they have to gauge their situation is a sense of relative worth, a sense that comes from relative access to goods and services. All they can do is feel that they are not getting paid enough. All they can do is feel isolated from a community (churches today fill a big gap). All they can do is get a little good feeling from entertainment and toys.

And the would-be representatives? All they can do is pander to those feelings. They haven't either the intellectual capacity or the time or the judgment to sufficiently understand a modern world dominated by technology and spinning out of control. They are, after all, just human. They have to expend what intellectual resources they have on just understanding what about people's feelings will get them elected.

We are in an age when neither the citizen nor the representative/public servant has the capability to deeply grasp what is happening. None of their 'plans', none of their 'policies' even begin to reflect an understanding of how the modern world works. If it did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

Put simply, is the world too complex and dynamic for democracy, even representative democracy to work as a form of governance? Is the scale is too big? Indeed the scale is that of the earth as a whole, not just individual nations. Is the rate of change due almost completely to science and technology so far over the top that good old-fashioned deliberative democracy is doomed to the same historical garbage heap as feudalism and monarchies?

We have some serious problems that seem to reside in the twin concepts of democracy and free markets (including capitalism). Might not the solution start with questioning the notion that these bedrock ideas are made antique by a modern world needing better economics principles and better governance?

Comments

[Ron Lubensky]

I think it is needless to expect any individual to understand everything. As an academic and practitioner exploring deliberative democracy, I recently advised a local council in Australia that convened a citizens jury. Some participants understood the local planning issues better than others, but it was the whole group dynamic, with the help of facilitation that promoted mutual respect, openness and self-reflection, that was able to make recommendations which clearly represented the community sentiment. So content-issue complexity should be matched by participatory processes which in themselves allow for complex and non-deterministic dynamics. Oh, and it's not all about science either--people's "feelings" do matter as they can serve as an entry point for rational discourse.

[George Mobus]

No argument from me on anything you've said. When it works it works. But more often it seems to not work. Then we have to ask why not.

I don't believe I said or claimed that every individual had to understand everything. What I did say is that to make informed decisions you definitely need to have some understanding.

But I am a proponent of Systems Science as a basic knowledge framework for everyone passing through the public education system. A healthy understanding of systems is an excellent scaffold to use to come to understanding any number of things in this world - to be a quick study in many area. In my mind the ideal citizen will have a strong sense of systemness and be able to understand the systemic nature of most real issues in this world.

Lack of inherent wisdom or sapience and lack of understanding connectivity and dynamics, as I observe, are the greatest cause of failure for discourse and deliberation to proceed.