Now, in the remaining months before the election, an instant democracy turn-around program is of decisive relevance. Further measures to stabilize US democracy on the long-run are also indispensable.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
To make it clear upfront: The thoughts in this essay are not an encouragement to vote for what I perceive to be a dangerous demagogue. To the contrary. They are a call on the Biden government to now rectify some fundamental flaws in policy making. Most democratic governments suffer from these deficits. Securing democracy in the US and globally requires that we mend them.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Tonight, I come to talk about crisis and opportunity, about rebuilding the nation, revitalizing our democracy, and winning the future for America.” Under the impression of the chaos in government under the Trump presidency and the upheaval he caused after losing the election in 2020, Joe Biden declared “revitalizing democracy” the prime task of his government in pretty much the first sentence of his address to Congress at the outset of his term in April 2021. [i]
One must appreciate that Joe Biden stood against a demagogue like Trump and maintained the US as a democracy, even if certainly not a perfect one, over the last three years. One can only hope that he manages to repeat this achievement in a now likely second electoral competition for the Presidency against Trump in November 2024.
Still, by now, about seven months before the new election, it becomes disturbingly evident that Biden and his government spectacularly and critically failed to deliver on what three years ago they themselves declared to be their prime responsibility in office. According to polls in the spring, 45 percent, nearly or around half of the electorate are still in favor of Donald Trump.[ii] The outcome of the upcoming election is unclear and now, even more so than in previous elections in which Trump stood, the US is at risk of decaying into a chaotic and destructive dictatorship. The Trumpist action plan for a takeover of the state formulated in the “Project 2025” document evokes disturbing images of the ferocious wiping out of all opposition by the NAZIs in Germany in the 1930s.[iii]
Why have the many democracy endeavors which the Biden government undertook over these three years, the “Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal”, the repeated international “Summits for Democracy”, and the overall expense of “approximately $9.5 billion… to support democracy, human rights, and good governance globally”, not produced any results, neither nationally nor globally? [iv] And what needs to happen now to protect democracy in the US?
Faulty Policy Approach
The range of reasons for the failure of the Biden democracy project appears rather large. It seems to begin with the wrong philosophy behind the approach. In his speech to Congress Joe Biden declared: “We have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people”.[v] What, however, if the political and economic circumstances were to make delivering what people expect difficult or even impossible? Then there is the imprecise overall definition of the policy aim ranging from “defending democracy, fighting for it, strengthening it, renewing it” to “revitalizing it”, when the overall goal after the last election clearly must have been and now urgently must be “stabilizing” US democracy.
Moreover, the design of the project strategies appears incoherent. The outline of the Summit for Democracy called for input on three main areas, “Defending against authoritarianism”, “Addressing and fighting corruption”, and “Advancing respect for human rights”. These aspects are without doubt somehow connected to healthy democracies at home and around the world, but they clearly do not exert a direct impact on the goal of “stabilizing” democracy. Sound strategies depend on a precise analysis of all factors affecting the achievement of the policy goal. Any effort to “stabilize democracy” clearly depends on ensuring trust in the democratic system, at least as a key aspect. From this thought follows the necessity to ensure that the factors warranting trust in the political system are in place, including certainly the solid construction of the political system. One aspect in the policy design of the Biden government also appears to be that national and international efforts are fused, enhancing the lack of clarity in the strategy design. A further problem appears to be a certain mingling of the role of Joe Biden as a head of state responsible for ensuring the stability of US democracy and as a competitor against Trump in a seemingly never-ending election campaign, with both roles demanding different strategic approaches.
Finally, there seem to be deficiencies in the communication with the public on the democracy efforts. The website on the Summit for Democracy is far too convoluted for any citizen to take any information in on how democracy is to be made to work for the people.[vi] One will not want to emulate Trump, but with his populist style of communication he appears to reach people far more effectively.
Structural Deficits in Government Policy Making
Two reasons behind these deficits in strategy making appear to be a lack of methodological know-how for policy making, evident from the flawed design of the democracy project, and the lack of an effective Government Performance Management System, which would have insured an effective policy design.
A further fundamental structural shortcoming causing these deficits is the apparent failure to set-up government as a permanently learning system, a set-up which would include an effective system of open consultation with the public both on governance and policy design. Practically all democratic governments in the world appear to suffer from this lack of openness. They operate as “closed shops” in which government decision and policy making largely happens in a small circle of ministers, advisers, and possibly, public officials and is often based on personal convictions of the decision makers, rather than on comprehensive consultation and rational decision-making methods.
As Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher observed in the New York Times already in December 2020, more than three years ago, the members of the then incoming Biden government were largely selected on the basis of their years, if not decades of cooperation with Joe Biden. They looked like a “team of buddies”. Reflecting on the benefits, but also the risks of such a tightly woven staff network, they wrote: “Even some allies in the Democratic Party say they worry that Mr. Biden’s reliance on the same people threatens to undermine his ability to find solutions to the country’s problems that go beyond the usual ones embraced by the establishment in Washington.” Observers were suggesting, “With building his team based on credentials”, he would miss the “opportunity to introduce fresh blood and new thinking…”. They felt: “Tackling the big problems in America…is going to require a lively debate…It doesn’t have to be a room full of people you like.” [vii]
These warnings have come true, as the remarkable failure of the democracy endeavours of the Biden government show, so far at least. In an essay the author of the considerations presented here already made suggestions in January 2021 on what the Biden government needed to do to be successful in its approach to stabilizing US democracy.[viii] Later in the year he spent days trying to get through to the US government, both the White House and the Department of State, to offer know-how on systemic problem structuring methodologies to help ensure the success of the “Summit for Democracy” and of the other democracy efforts of the Biden government. No result. No way to get through to the government, even on a question of such existential relevance for the nation. If one suggests that a policy concept cannot work in the way it is structured, people in government appear to build defense walls around their approach, rather than checking such suggestions out. That is partly natural human behaviour. To overcome such inherent resistance an independent quality control system in government is required which ensures that policy approaches are sensible and work. Especially if democracy is at stake, a responsible government must actively look for and include any potentially relevant know-how.
The US – Not A Democracy Anymore?
As also the case in this essay, we keep talking about the US as a democracy. A fundamental reason for the lack of success in stabilizing US democracy, however, must finally be the fact that, many observers suggest that this is wrong. Rather than being a democracy, the US political system would be a system controlled by money.
In a detailed assessment of the matter political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page state already in 2014: “…when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose”. Later in their essay they conclude: “… we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” [ix] The former Vice President Al Gore formulates such observations even more unreservedly. In his 2013 book “The Future” he writes: “…Not since the 1890s has U.S. government decision making been as feeble, dysfunctional, and servile to corporate and other special interests as it is now”, and: “The US no longer has a well-functioning self-government…American democracy has been hacked.” [x]
When Joe Biden declares: “We have to prove democracy still works…” he completely ignores such crucial perceptions about the essence of US democracy. Yet stabilizing US democracy undoubtedly requires the trust of the people, and the people will only then trust in the US political system, if it truly is a democracy serving wider society. Fixing this structural deficit in US democracy clearly is an enormous task for any government. But who wants to stabilize US democracy cannot sweep this fundamental issue under the carpet. People will always notice and distrust the system if what they get is not the real thing.
Clearly any government which takes its responsibility in serving society seriously, must examine and discuss suggestions like the ones presented here on why it failed in reaching its prime policy goal. It is, as we realize, of critical, perhaps existential relevance for democracy and a nation.
What now?
Due to the failure of the Biden government to stabilize US democracy over the last three years, the US now, half a year before the new presidential election is more than before on cliff’s edge of turning into a dictatorship. To avert the risk an instant short-term democracy turn-around program appears now desperately required. Moreover, US democracy should be set on a stable footing for the long run.
1. An Instant Democracy Turn-Around Program to Stabilize US Democracy in As Much As Possible Before The Election
What would be the purpose of such an instant democracy stabilization programme?
The first goal evidently would be to avert the risk of the US turning into a destructive dictatorship.
The basic mean required to achieve this goal would be to offer more sensible alternatives to the public for reaching their goals and for turning the US into an effective democracy serving wider society.
To convince the people one would have to gain their trust.
To achieve this, one would have to address all existing problems in society and the state in an honest way, from poverty and inequality to migration, race, and certainly the climate, to the problems of US democracy itself.
One would have to discuss the joint goals of American society, the pros and cons of what “Making America Great Again” means, and the need to instead perhaps simply agree on “building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society” as a joint goal.
One then would have to discuss the central need to make the political system including government as effective as only possible to achieve this goal. In this context one would have to point to the factors which make a government effective, the need for both, effective government processes and for persons of high integrity and high professional qualifications in government and the Civil Service.
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, as two of the founding fathers of the US, already provided clues on the selection criteria for officials in the US governments. Reflecting on the election of a president for Columbia College, the oldest undergraduate college in New York, Alexander Hamilton notes: “It is essential that he be a gentleman in his manners, as well a sound and polite scholar, that his moral character be irreproachable; that he possesses energy of body and mind, and be of a disposition to maintain discipline without undue austerity; and in the last place, that his politics be of the right sort.”[xi] Thomas Jefferson suggests that the federal service of the US requires officers “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”[xii].
Certainly, nobody is perfect, and also the founding fathers were not. Still, the Biden government needs to make it clear to society that especially those who aim to “Make America Great Again” must be looking for leaders who fulfil these guidelines. It must convey that applying these criteria clearly shows that Donald Trump is not at all suited for any political office in the US and certainly not to lead the nation. Instead of making it great, he would rather destroy it.
In as far as government processes are concerned a turn-around program could concentrate on how the government would in the future ensure that citizens are adequately heard and involved in the policy making process and how the government will ensure its optimal performance through an open consultation system with the public and through an effective Government Performance Management System.
If one discusses all these issues with US society in the most open, honest, and constructive way conceivable and communicates with the public on these issues in an effective manner, I am sure one can prevent the US from turning into a dictatorship in November.
2. Stabilizing US Democracy on The Long Run
To stabilize US democracy on the long run three key factors appear essential:
- First, people must subscribe to a joint goal, such as creating a co-operative, healthy, and strong society.
- Second, people must appreciate and be certain that they have the very best democratic system conceivable to achieve this goal, and,
- Third, they must be able how to run their democratic system effectively and to ensure it stays stable. Crucial issues which the public must understand is how to select suitable politicians and how to prevent the democratic system turning into a dictatorship.
Government should lead and agree with society on the goal of building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society. The goal should perhaps form the basis of a joint mission statement of society.
For people to know that they have the very best system conceivable that quality in itself must be a fact. The new government should, therefore, install a work group to initiate the review of the construction of the US democratic system. The group should propose measures to mend its deficits. A key problem evidently is the fact that the US democracy is dominated by money. Fixing this problem will be extremely difficult but must be done. One problem of the US election system evidently is that it repeatedly leads to a show-down between two elderly candidates when in a three-hundred million society easily fifteen candidates could be found who possess the necessary qualities and qualifications to run the nation. A constitutional review should also address this problem evidently caused by the election system. The world is facing huge challenges. For the US being able to cope with these challenges and having the most effective and efficient democratic system conceivable is of fundamental relevance for the nation and for the democratic world.
Ultimately, stabilizing democracy requires that people understand the value of democracy, what it is, how it can and must work to serve wider society as effectively and efficiently as only possible. They must also see that building the perfect political system is extremely difficult and requires huge system building capacities and co-operation. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government “of, by and for the people”. People must understand what government “by the people” entails and what they can and must do to make “their government” effective and efficient and to keep the democratic system stable. Conveying all this information requires a highly effective Citizenship Education System. This must be built as soon as only possible.
But back to the present situation.
As we said, there are only seven months to the Presidential election in November. To avert the risk of the US turning into a dictatorship at that point President Biden must now, without delay, initiate an instant turn-around program for US democracy. For the program to be effective, Biden and his government must now finally look for “new ideas and thinking” on the matter, they must tap into relevant know-how distributed in society and consult comprehensively with society on how to structure the program.
[i] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, U.S. Capitol, April 28, 2021Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress | The White House
[ii] 2024 Election: Biden Holds On To Slight Lead Over Trump, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trump Gets Higher Marks On Age, Mental & Physical Fitness; Biden Does Better On Ethics, Empathy & Temperament, https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3890
[iii] For a discussion of the Project 2025 see for example MICHAEL HIRSH, Inside the Next Republican Revolution, Politico, 19 September 2023, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811
[iv] The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad, Briefing Room, Statements and Releases, MARCH 29, 2023, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad | The White House
[v] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, April 28, 2021
[vi] Cf. The Summit for Democracy, The Summit for Democracy – United States Department of State
[vii] Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher , Team of Rivals? Biden’s Cabinet Looks More Like a Team of Buddies. In making his picks for the new administration, the president-elect has put a premium on personal relationships., New York Times, Dec. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/biden-cabinet-personal-relationships.html
[viii] Hans Peter Ulrich, Biden – The Savior of Democracy? | optimisingdemocracy, 29 January, 2021
[ix] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, American Political Science Association 2014, Published online by Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595
[x] Al Gore, The Future, 2013, p. 95 and 104
[xi] Quote in Paul C. Light, A government ill executed, Harvard University Press, 2008 , p. 79 (from Lynton K Caldwell, The administrative theories of Hamilton and Jefferson…Chicago University Press, 1944)
[xii] Ibid. (from writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 182)
optimisingdemocracy 