Is Democracy A System Worth Defending, or a Noble Illusion to Placate the Masses?

Few political systems attract such widespread praise and yet provoke such deep skepticism as democracy. It is invoked as a symbol of liberty, fairness, and progress—but also accused of inefficiency, manipulation, and vulnerability. For some, democracy is humanity’s greatest political invention. For others, it is an overrated ideal masking the flaws of power and inequality.

If we are committed to inclusive political frameworks, that do not impose a singular cultural, economic, or ideological model—the question is not simply whether democracy works, but rather for whom and under what conditions. Democracy, as practiced, often reflects the structures and limitations of the socio-economic systems within which it operates. Its widespread acceptance may owe as much to its compatibility with global capitalism as to any inherent moral superiority.

Some critics argue that the institutions of today’s liberal democracy evolved to support the capitalist way of life, holding dear the principles of individual entrepreneurism and property rights. From this view, democracy is less a universal good than a historical form of governance, legitimising and stabilising existing inequalities. Its rituals—elections, parliaments, party competition—can give the appearance of inclusion while marginalising those without economic or cultural capital.

As democratic norms face erosion around the globe, as in the USA today, it may be worth pausing to ask a deeper question: why is democracy so good? And just as crucially, why do so many people believe it isn’t? Here we explore both sides of the debate—not necessarily to reach a verdict, but to open space for reflection and meaningful discussion, and possibly rethinking.

What is the key Promise of Democracy: Why Do We Believe in It?

At its core, democracy offers a deceptively simple proposition: power should rest with the people. This idea of popular sovereignty has profound implications. It replaces the divine right of kings or the brute force of dictators, with something more egalitarian: the consent of the ‘governed’.

In theory, democracy ensures that citizens have a say in who governs them and how they are governed. This isn’t just about elections. It’s about the moral legitimacy of governance: decisions made by representatives chosen by the people are considered more just and acceptable than decisions imposed autocratically from above.

Democracies tend to protect freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and the press. These aren’t incidental; they’re essential. John Stuart Mill argued that free expression is critical to truth-seeking and human flourishing. Without democratic institutions to uphold these rights, freedom is often In danger as in Spain under Franco, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin and Putin and now possibly even in the USA under Trump.

Elected officials in democracies are, at least in principle, accountable to voters. If they fail, they can be voted out. This check on power is one of democracy’s greatest strengths. It is supported by various mechanisms we believe in.

For instance we supposedly have fair and independent courts. However, given the costs of going to court, the ‘law’ as implemented can be thought too available just for the well-off.

Then there is the idea of a free press, though that can be questioned when it is dominated by international press barons and social media platforms.

There is also supposedly free public access to information. However, again, this can be questioned as in the Epstein case in the USA). Is it only ‘free’ when it suits the government?

Unlike authoritarian systems where dissent is often criminalized, democracies provide institutional ways to resolve disputes. Parliaments, courts, elections, and public discourse offer peaceful alternatives to revolution or repression.

Democracies tend to enjoy higher levels of education, health, and economic development. Yet, from a universalist perspective, we must ask whether these successes extend to everyone, or only to those already ‘included’ within the socio-political contract?

Are some voices excluded? Are some belief systems systematically marginalised, even in “mature” democracies?

On the other hand, what are the Problems of Democracy? What do the Critics Say?

Despite of all its virtues, it would be naive to say that our democracy is perfect. Critics, from ancient philosophers to modern political theorists, have pointed to its problems, all manner of vulnerabilities and contradictions.

Plato warned that allowing everyone a vote, regardless of their knowledge or virtue, was like letting a random group of people vote on how to steer a ship. In modern democracies, voter ignorance remains a serious problem. Surveys often show that many citizens do not understand how government works, what parties stand for, or even basic policy issues. This has led to identity politics where a leader’s “charm” may be more important in elections than their policies.

There is also a major question of what protects minorities when 51% can vote to take away their rights? When observing early American democracy,, Alexis de Tocqueville,  coined the term “tyranny of the majority.” In Australia by far the majority of people “own”, in some sense, their own home (mortgages or families aside). Is this majority why we have climate policies that provide home owners with massive cost reducing solar installation subsidies while tenants get almost nothing? 

Another example was when, in 2020, the public within Australia allowed, without hardly a murmur, the PM Scott Morrison to deny the UN agreed human right of Australians caught abroad to return home; their plane tickets costing 1000’s of dollars were dictatorially cancelled, sometimes just minutes before departure, after they had moved out of their accommodation, causing them serious financial losses, as they had to find more accommodation and buy yet another plane ticket! Many people had lots of tickets cancelled. Surely this was a real disgrace.

Democratic leaders often prioritize the next election cycle, not the next generation. This leads to short-termism and avoidance of tough decisions, such as on climate change, taxation, or welfare reform. Populist leaders, meanwhile, exploit emotions and identity politics to gain power, sometimes undermining democratic norms from within.

In theory, democracy is egalitarian. In practice, wealth can distort it. Research by Gilens and Page (2014) found that, in the U.S., policies favoured by economic elites are far more likely to be enacted than those supported by the general public. Thomas Piketty has argued that without checks on capital accumulation, democracies risk devolving into what he calls “patrimonial capitalism.” For instance, to be President of the USA, a person needs to be extremely well-off and President Trump has made no illusions about his connections to the well-off.

Hence, it can be argued that democracy within capitalism tends to neutralise inequality, embedding systemic economic exclusion while offering periodic political participation as compensation. The market and the vote coexist, but unequally. As long as private capital controls media, lobbying, and political donations, democratic equality may remain partial at best. 

It’s very disturbing how the daily circulation of newspapers in Australia is 90% controlled by just two companies (News Corp and Nine Entertainment). Democracy depends on informed citizens. But what happens when media is concentrated in a few hands, or when algorithms feed users only what they want to hear? The rise of disinformation and propaganda, particularly via social media, threatens rational debate. 

In many democracies, legislative gridlock and bureaucratic inertia often delay or prevent needed reforms. Too many veto points, partisan divisions, or procedural obstacles make governance inefficient. Important policies are often put on the backburner as elections approach. And that we, in Australia, have elections every 3 years, as opposed to 4 or 5 in most other countries. Some even argue that authoritarian regimes, while dangerous, can be more “efficient” in certain contexts.

History shows that democracies can decay. Leaders may be elected fairly, only to erode checks and balances once in office. Examples include Turkey under Erdogan, Hungary under Orban, or even the U.S. during the Trump presidency.

Elections alone do not guarantee liberty. The idea of randomly selected members of parliament, called sortition, has some interesting benefits and we hope to have a discussion of this soon.

Not all societies are ready for democracy. Post-colonial states often inherited Western models that did not align with local traditions. Rapid democratization in places without strong institutions can lead to instability, corruption, or authoritarian relapse, as seen in parts of the Middle East after the Arab Spring.

So, Is Democracy Still Worth It?

If democracy is so vulnerable, why do we keep returning to it?

Perhaps because, as Winston Churchill famously said, it is “the worst form of government… except for all the others that have been tried” which are even worse. Democracy is not a guarantee of good outcomes, but it offers a framework for correcting bad ones. Unlike authoritarian regimes, democracies can adapt, reform, and self-correct, albeit slowly and unevenly.

Yet from one perspective, the goal is not to reject democracy outright but to decolonise and democratise it further—to create more inclusive structures that resist capture by capital, culture, or majority rule. Democracy must remain open to those excluded by existing boundaries: the economically dispossessed, the culturally marginalised, the stateless, the future generations. Should we be exploring other forms of popular sovereignty, like sortition and chamber democracy, rather than our current electoral systems?

Then there is what is called technocracy. That is rule by experts which risks elitism.

How about benevolent dictatorship? The trouble this rarely stays benevolent.

Then there is theocracy buy this risks dogmatism.

Democracy, flawed as it is, remains the most plausible framework for inclusive governance, but only if we are constantly willing to openly reassess where it is going.

The future of democracy lies in this tension: between its liberal-capitalist form and its radical potential. To believe in democracy as a universal possibility is not to celebrate it uncritically, but to fight for a version of democracy that is truly open, universal, accountable, and shared.

What do you think? What pleases or displeases you in our democratic system?

References:

• Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Gilens, M. & Page, B.I. (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.
• Tocqueville, A. de (1835). Democracy in America.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.