Compared to other forms of government, Democracy is almost elegant in its simplicity. In its purest form, the majority decides who gets to govern and what policies get made. The decision is fair inasmuch as it considers that not everybody wants the same things, and still gives everyone a chance to say so. Yet a decision needs to be made one way or another, so if more people get what they want than fewer, then there shouldn’t be a problem. However, this system functions best given a few prerequisites: everyone who votes is of equal standing with everyone else, and the decision is a fairly simple one with the trade-offs clearly spelled out. This “majority rules” system has expanded to become a model of governance for many nations today, so it might seem like a perfect system to base policy decisions on. The problem is that there is no system so perfect that people, who are not perfect, cannot ruin. When functioning as intended, Democracy does at least deliver on good enough.
Democracy works best when decisions are simple and the population is not too invested in the outcome of the vote. A choice between Thai and Italian food for an outing among friends, for example, is a matter of preference, yet since the company is more important than the cuisine, everyone is happy to comply with the popular vote. It’s different when the friend group comprises a greater diversity of people’s personal and religious values and allergies which complicate the decision. In that case, everybody settles for the best compromise, or agrees to not share food.
At the national scale, early Democracies were much simpler in voter composition. A certain core group would be eligible to vote and outcomes would only seek to satisfy the segment of the population privileged with a vote. In ancient Athens, only male Greek citizens got to vote while the women and slaves had no voice in political matters, even if it involved war and bloodshed. It was the same in the days of early self-governing republics like the USA and France: a generally homogenous voting class, and outcomes were so limited that those who voted otherwise would still have agreed to abide by the result – or a civil war broke out when clashes of personal values could not reach a compromise. And still, the women and slaves did not have a say, either way.
Democratic rules are fair: everybody gets to cast a vote and the outcome is the highest sum total of the votes cast for one of two or more options – the popular vote. However the outcomes are not always fair. Most often, the majority that cast the most votes in the previous ballot retains the same majority in the next, and the fortune of the minority never changes no matter how many times the population goes to the polls. Another scenario is when the voting population is almost evenly split down the middle with either ‘side’ firmly committed to making sure the other side doesn’t win. When the population is this invested in the outcome of their politics, society is almost as likely to be fractured along the same lines. Republicans vs Democrats. Conservatives vs Labour. Today’s democratic elections are looking less like a renewal of the mandate to govern, and more like strategic positioning to acquire or retain administrative power among the competing parties.
Even before bringing in the further complication of a growing diversity of voters seeking to satisfy different and often conflicting needs, democratic governments voted in on the slightest of margins are already gridlocked in making decisions for their constituents based on the parties’ campaign philosophies, platforms and promises. Avert climate change or be business-friendly? Promote protectionism or grow global trade? Integrate immigrants or expel aliens? These are choices that can be negotiated, but have become platforms for political parties to exploit for political advantage rather than making a commitment to put the interests of the nation as a whole (and not just favoured segments of it) first.
Due to societal imbalances in influence and wealth, Democratic systems are open to manipulation. Through the process of ‘lobbying’, rich, powerful corporations and individuals support parties and candidates with campaign pledges and get them to make rules and laws in their favour, even if at the expense of the voting public. Gerrymandering – a geographical redesign of voting districts – is a way in which the incumbent party unfairly attempts to secure the majority of votes in the next Democratic election. And in some seriously flawed Democracies, one party gets to stand for elections while disqualifying, even outlawing potential competitors from running, thus legitimising the party in power for yet another term. Sometimes, voter apathy sets in when the electorate fails to see the difference between one option or another and decides it is not worth their time and effort to cast a vote either way.
Furthermore, some nations adopt the name of ‘Democracy’ (the pejorative, ‘Banana Republic’, comes to mind, as does the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) even though they function more like dictatorships. The name of ‘democracy’ has an allure that non-democratic rulers use to validate and legitimise their political decisions as the ‘will of the people’, even if nobody believes it. It is the veneer of fairness – and not its perfect outcomes – that makes Democracy a form of government that overtly authoritarian regimes claim to function under.
People judge Democracy by its often disappointing outcomes. Yet as a system of governance, it provides a strong process in negotiating outcomes rather than railroading one viewpoint over others. Unable to satisfy everybody, the best outcomes are often what most people can live with. Functional democracies tend more to be a hybrid of the freedom and self-actualisation of making choices that democracy affords with either a strong, decisive leader (like Singapore during its early independence), or a more socialist style of governance with a collectivist approach to serving the people (like in the Scandinavian states and Canada). People will either follow an inspiring visionary with a credible track record, or because of a strong community spirit, people choose to support their compatriots through their difficulties.
At its core, Democracy is a system for collective decision-making. But due to the diversity of human needs coupled with the flaws of human nature, democracy looks fair but delivers imperfect results. In itself, that is a source of frustration for many people torn between competing systems that range from Draconian to chaotic. At least with Democracy, people feel that they have some control over the choices they make. And Democracies that function primarily as Democracies do provide their people with both a sense of autonomy within a community that generally has one another’s backs. It’s a better option than having choices made for them by a dictator, or living in an anarchy in which choices have more to do with immediate survival than building for a future.
Ultimately, Democracies are a function and a reflection of the imperfect people they govern. Some Democracies exist in name only, but for most, Democracy is the best compromise as a way for people to make collective decisions that serve their best interests. The results of Democratic decisions, whether at the polls or on policy matters, can never satisfy everyone. But in a society that agrees on some give and take, Democracy is the most fair and the most freeing of our political options. Less about eliminating dissatisfaction and more about maintaining civility in managing disagreement, it is, at least, a way to make decisions with imperfect outcomes while keeping the peace among a people who can accept one another’s imperfections.
(1274 words)
Inspired by Singapore-Cambridge GCE ‘A’ Level H1 General Paper (Paper 1) 2025 Question #5