In recent years, the concept of democracy has come under scrutiny, with debates surrounding whether there can be 'too much democracy.' This question is often asked in light of various global events where democratic processes have led to controversial outcomes. For example, the Brexit referendum, where a slim majority decided on the UK's departure from the EU, has been cited as a case where direct democracy may have led to a decision not fully representative of the population's nuanced views (Rogoff, 2016). Democracy, defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision‐making, is foundational to many societies. However, its application and execution can significantly impact its effectiveness.
In this essay, I will explore three case studies to examine this question: the Brexit referendum in the UK, the challenges of referendums in the US, and the post-Taliban democratic efforts in Afghanistan. Overall, I will contend that the failures often attributed to 'too much democracy' are more accurately described as issues arising from 'too much direct democracy in the wrong places' and poor execution of democratic practices.
Brexit: The Problem of Too Much Democracy in the Wrong Place
Brexit’s low voter turnout and public dissatisfaction could be deemed as ‘too much democracy’, because it applied a direct democratic mechanism to a complex decision, which results in an oversimplified outcome. The referendum’s design of only requiring a simple majority to decide a significant issue does not capture the true will of the population. There was a 70% voter turnout, which means only 36% of the eligible voting population needed to support Brexit for it to pass. The outcome of the referendum did not represent the views of a significant portion of the population, as only a narrow majority of those who voted determined the result (BBC News).
The simple majority for Brexit did not ensure a robust mandate for such a consequential decision, as major constitutional changes require a higher level of consensus. In 2016, people voted to leave, but the method of leaving was undecided, leading to confusion between a 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit. The Leave campaign's promises, such as redirecting £350 million a week to the NHS, were misleading, as they ignored the rebate and funds the UK received from the EU (Dayan, 2021). Consequently, many voters felt misled, with a January 2020 Survation poll showing 53% believed leaving the EU was wrong, and a November 2021 poll indicating 54% would prefer to re-join. This case could demonstrate ‘too much democracy’ because it shows how the want to enact democratic decisions led to unfavourable outcomes thus ultimately undemocratic results.
However, I suggest that the Brexit referendum would more accurately be described as "too much direct democracy in the wrong place" as it represents a traditionally representative democratic country inefficiently using direct democracy. In 2002 Mendelsohn and Cutler noticed a surge of direct democracy being used in countries without experience, and the Brexit example can be seen as a further case study (Mendelsohn and Cutler, 2002). The referendum oversimplified the complex nature of EU membership into a binary choice, enabling populist sentiments to dominate. The outcome's implementation highlighted these issues, as differing views among MPs led to legislative gridlock (Rogoff, 2016).
Moreover, the passage of the EU Withdrawal Bill (2017-2019) exemplified the ensuing power struggles. Clause 11 of the Bill required devolved legislatures to comply with EU law unless a UK Government minister decided otherwise. This was perceived as a 'power grab' by leaders in Scotland and Wales, who argued that powers should revert to devolved control rather than be centralised in Westminster (O’Connell, 2018). Despite amendments, the process underscored the inherent conflict in managing power distribution within the UK's democratic framework.
Thus, the Brexit referendum illustrates the pitfalls of applying democratic mechanisms inappropriately, which leads to a decision driven by populist sentiments rather than informed deliberation. The UK's primary democratic structure relies on representative democracy, where elected officials deliberate and make decisions on complex issues. The introduction of direct democracy through the Brexit referendum disrupted this process, leading to confusion and conflict. The principle of democracy is still there, but the failure of Brexit resulted from the clash of representative and direct democracy.
Beyond the use of referendums in countries without experience, referendums in general fail to adequately represent the complexities and nuances of public opinion, which reduces diverse perspectives into binary choices. This reflects how the issue lies in the way direct democracy is being used, rather than a systematic issue with more general, or representative democracy.
Referendums’ aim is to resolve Condorcet’s paradox, which is a situation where majority rule behaves in a way that is self-contradictory, ensuring a decisive outcome preferred by at least half of the voters (LeDuc, 2015). However, this framework oversimplifies complex issues,leading to outcomes that may not accurately reflect the nuanced preferences of the electorate. Voters often assess referendum options under the assumption that Option A (e.g., a "yes" vote) and Option B (e.g., a "no" vote) represent distinct and mutually exclusive issues. This simplification can produce a Condorcet winner, where a majority supports one option over the other. However, in reality, each option encapsulates multiple issues and viewpoints, making it difficult for any single option to fully represent the electorate's diverse perspectives. 2For the Brexit referendum, voters who chose to leave the EU (option A) did so for various reasons, including reasons about immigration and sovereignty (Kauffmann, 2016). While the ‘leave’ campaign may have attracted individuals with differing priorities - some focused on reducing immigration, others on regaining legislative autonomy - these nuanced motivations were obscured in the binary choice. Consequently, not all voters who supported leaving the EU agreed with the campaign’s stance on immigration.
Thus, the "yes or no" framework of referendums fails to account for the multidimensional beliefs of the electorate. The reduction of multifaceted issues into a single vote option can result in an outcome that does not fully reflect the varied and intricate views of all those who supported it. This demonstrates poor execution of democracy, where direct democratic mechanisms are applied inappropriately, leading to oversimplified and potentially unrepresentative outcomes. Instead of having "too much democracy," this scenario highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to democratic decision-making, ensuring that complex issues are addressed with the depth and consideration they require.
TSL: The problem with referendums A further example of how referendums represent ‘too much democracy in the wrong place’ can be seen in The California Three Strikes Law (TSL). This policy highlights how complex policy decisions can backfire when placed directly in the hands of the public without adequate deliberation and expert input.
The TSL imposes harsh sentencing enhancements for second and third felony convictions. It includes non-violent crimes, such as residential burglary, under its harshest sentences. The law mandates a 25-year-to-life sentence for any third felony, expanding the scope of severe penalties (Cain, 2015) Researchers like Zimring (Erler, 2020) and his colleagues examined whether the TSL reduced crime through incapacitation (locking up repeat offenders) or deterrence (discouraging repeat offences). They found no change in the proportion of second-strike offenders before and after the law, indicating no significant incapacitation or deterrence effect.
The California Three Strikes Law serves as a prime example of how an overreliance on direct democracy can exacerbate the problems highlighted in the previous section concerning excessive choice and bipartisanship. The TSL, born out of a voter initiative, presented a binary choice – support harsher sentences or not. This failed to capture the complexities of criminal justice reform. Voters who might have supported stricter penalties for violent crimes may not have agreed with applying such harsh sentences to non-violent offences like residential burglary. Therefore, direct democracy, in this instance, led to a policy catering to the most extreme voices on the issue. The "tough on crime" rhetoric surrounding the TSL might have resonated with some voters, but the actual impact – minimal crime reduction and mass incarceration – did not reflect the needs of the broader electorate.
The TSL case highlights how direct democracy, when used for complex issues like criminal justice reform, can amplify the problems of excessive choice and lead to poorly designed policies that don't reflect the public's nuanced views. It's not that voters are incapable of making decisions, but rather that complex issues require a more deliberative process – perhaps a combination of public input and expert analysis – to arrive at effective solutions.
Afghanistan: The Misapplication of Democracy
While democratic elections might not necessarily yield good results, and democratisation processes might experience ups and downs, the negative consequences of democratisation or democratic practices should not be simply labelled "too much democracy" and "less democracy" is not the answer. The termination of democratisation in Afghanistan (2001-2021) is often cited as a failure of democracy (Partaw, 2022). While it is easy and often understandable to blame the argue that the Afghanistan society is incompatible with democracy and too much democracy led to the collapse of Afghan republic and the return of Taliban, the true reasons are much more complex. The post-2001 Afghanistan scenario provides a counterpoint to the poor execution ofdemocratisation by highlighting the challenges within representative democracy. The Bonn Process supported by the UN and in particular the US, forced a nation-building process incapable of uniting divided among the non-Taliban Afghan groups. The Bonn Agreement provided a framework for the 2004 Afghan Constitution and the following presidential and parliamentary elections (Dipali, 2014).
However, the Bonn agreement's emphasis on a strong presidential system and centralised government proved flawed. Afghanistan has its own traditional election process ‘loya jirga’ (Krakauer, 2009) held amongst tribal leaders around the countries and most of its educated elites were concentrated in Kabul. The design of a powerful central government, lack of local institutions and lack of ballot delivery and collection measures undermined the government's legitimacy and effectiveness. The problem was further fuelled by the division between Kabul elites and the rest of the Afghan people. In addition to the imbalance of political power, the failure to create a political community and the lack of performative legitimacy also contributes to the failure of democratisation in Afghanistan (Partaw, 2022; Ibrahimi, 2024). The international community, in particular the United States, has focused more on constructing parallel administrative institutions instead of reforming the existing ones (Murtazashvili, 2022). Failing to consider the historical, cultural, and practical realities of Afghanistan, the nation-building process, although with great emphasis on democratisation, was unable to unite the warlords, tribes and the public with democratic political institutions. This was demonstrated by the low turnout of presidential elections and long-lasting divisions within the cabinet (Jazeera, 2019). The Taliban seized on this area of neglect and alienated the West and their forced democracy. Thus, democracy’s failure was due to the method of implementation, rather than any ideological issues.
The problems occurred in the failure of democracy in Afghanistan are not inherent to democracy. Instead, the Afghan case shows representative democracy, when not properly balanced with local governance and regional participation, as well as the participation of the public, may lead to the collapse of the democratic system. Just as direct democracy misapplied can lead to oversimplification and gridlock, representative democratic systems mis-designed can result in over-centralisation and the lack of legitimacy. The terminations of democratisation do not necessarily indicate that democracy is not applicable to certain groups of people, or democratisation itself undesirable, but they suggested democratisation processes and even democracy in operation require respect for local economic, social and cultural contexts.
Conclusion
In examining these cases, it becomes evident that the failures often attributed to 'too much democracy' are more accurately described as issues arising from 'too much direct democracy in the wrong places' and poor execution of democratic practices. The Brexit referendum, the California Three-Strikes Law, and the post-Taliban governance in Afghanistan each highlight how improper use of democratic mechanisms leads to ineffective or harmful outcomes. By recognising the nuances of each context, democracies can better fulfil their principles and goals.
Bibliography
BBC (2016). EU Referendum Results. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results.
Bowler, S. and Donovan, T. (2019). Perceptions of Referendums and Democracy: The Referendum Disappointment Gap. 7(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1874.
Bruhn, K. (2010). Too Much Democracy? Primaries and Candidate Success in the 2006 Mexican National Elections. Latin American Politics and Society, 52(4), pp.25–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2010.00097.x.
Cain, B.E. (2015). Democracy more or less : America’s political reform quandary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Connell, R.O. (2018). Constitutional power grab? The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-2019 - UK in a changing Europe. [online] UK in a changing Europe. Available at: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/constitutional-power-grab-the-european-union-withdrawal-bill-2017-2019/[Accessed 26 Jun. 2024].
Dayan, M. (2021). The Brexit referendum five years on: what has it meant for the NHS? [online] The Nuffield Trust. Available at: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-brexit-referendum-five-years-on-what-has-it-meant-for-the-nhs.
City Journal. (diSalvo). Too Much Democracy? [online] Available at: https://www.city-journal.org/article/too-much-democracy.
Dowding, K., Hughes, J. and Margetts, H. (2001). Challenges to Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Drezner, D.W. (2021). Yes, there is such a thing as too much democracy. Washington Post. [online] 6 Oct. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/28/regarding-brexit-democracy-and-elitism/.
Folkestad, B. (2019). When do consultative referendums improve democracy? Evidence from local referendums in Norway. 42(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119881810.
Hug, S. Some thoughts about referendums, representative democracy, and separation of powers. Const Polit Econ 20, 251–266 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9065-1
Janiskee, B. and Erler, E. (n.d.). Duquesne Law Review Duquesne Law Review Crime, Punishment, and Crime, Punishment, and Romero: An Analysis of the Case Against : An Analysis of the Case Against California’s Three Strikes Law California’s Three Strikes Law. [online] Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3284&context=dlr.
Kaufmann, E. (2016). It’s NOT the economy, stupid: Brexit as a story of personal values. [online] British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/.
Lacy, D. (n.d.). A problem with Referendums. [online] Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0951692800012001001?casa_token=cS2RdCT_JwEAAAAA:HMx42DbvQTeTgA_tjyW9GqqPA7Sp95eGVR7_om_Bhpm_CZvtVyGzxpwkp1MpNqK6h0Sr7LH49GfqGQ [Accessed 22 May 2024].
LeDuc, L. (2003). The Politics of Direct Democracy. Peterborough, Ont. : Broadview Press.
LeDuc, L. (2015). Referendums and deliberative democracy. Electoral Studies, 38, pp.139–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.007.
Maija Setälä and Schiller, T. (2009). Referendums and Representative Democracy. Routledge.
Mendelsohn, M. and Cutler, F. (2002). The Effect of Referendumson Democratic Citizens:
Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400220292.
Merkel, W. and Kneip, S. (2018). Democracy and crisis : challenges in turbulent times. Cham: Springer.
Rahel, A. and Krakauer, J. (2009). Opinion | To Save Afghanistan, Look to Its Past. The New York Times. [online] 11 Sep. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11krakauer.html?scp=8&sq=jon%20krakauer&st=cse.
Rogoff, K. (2016). Britain’s Democratic Failure | by Kenneth Rogoff. [online] Project Syndicate. Available at: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-democratic-failure-for-uk-by-kenneth-rogoff-2016-06.
Setälä, M. (1999). Referendums in Western Europe – A Wave of Direct Democracy? Scandinavian Political Studies, 22(4), pp.327–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.00022.7www.aljazeera.com. (n.d.). Voter turnout falls sharply in Afghan presidential election. [online]
Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/9/29/voter-turnout-falls-sharply-in-afghan-presidential-election.
