Imperfections of a Democracy

We love democracy. It gives everyone the opportunity to participate in governance, directly and indirectly. It gives us the opportunity to express our views, within limits.

One of the basic principles in a democracy is the rule of the majority. Such a rule presupposes that the majority knows what is the best thing to do. It approximates John Stewart Mill’s concept of utilitarianism – the greatest good for the greatest number. It assumes that what is right is a question of numbers. Put differently, if most of us agree to a suggestion then it must be good for all.

Now, between you and me, do you think the assumption is always correct?

I am writing about this rule because a lot of legislation passed and actions made by law-making bodies from Congress to the barangay council may, in fact, be defective. They were passed simply because the majority thought it would promote the welfare of their constituents when in reality they would not. Worse, they may have been passed regardless of whether they are beneficial to the constituents as a whole.

The misuse of this rule and the adverse consequences resulting from it is as common as the actions which have net beneficial effects.

What is more distressing and disturbing is when actions are made “without thinking” so to speak. When no discussion is made, much less a debate, is when we should be afraid that the outcome would be disadvantageous to a lot of people, or that implementation problems could arise.

And when such actions of the majority are made under the “Other Matters” portion of the agenda, then we should become more suspicious. And when such “other matter” involves contracts pertaining to millions of pesos which will be taken from taxpayers’ money, then we should be afraid something wrong is going on. This is an effort to hide the decision from public view. Some would call this “railroading”, I would term this “devious”. It is a very clever way to insert a call to action in a manner that is made to appear to be unimportant when the truth is it is vested with public interest. Worse, it could be against public interest.

As I hinted, legislative action results in subsequent actions.

If such actions include disbursement of public funds, then the public officials who will sign the accomplishment reports, vouchers and checks may still be subjected to auditing rules and regulations even when they are no longer in effect. And if such checks amount to millions of pesos then they should think long and hard. Public documents are always there to be examined, sooner or later. Democracy has a way of catching up with them.

If the democracy that we love can be misused by the majority, is it worth loving? Or should we just dismiss such misuse as an acceptable imperfection of the democratic way of life?