Freaky Democracy

Might a democracy be incapable of planning for the future? Or, at the very least, might a democracy be less inclined to plan for the future than a dictatorship? In the democratic United States, we typically elect our leaders every two, four or six years. In a dictatorship like China, leaders are not elected; they remain in power for as long as they maintain that power. This may lead to a situation in which dictators like the Chinese are at a great advantage over democracies like America when it comes to long term planning.

Here’s the thing: Imagine Christmas. Every year, shoppers arrive at the mall with a variety of products to spend their money on. Based on a cost benefit analysis, the shopper will eventually spend his or her money on the product that appeals to them the most. This seems simple enough.

Likewise, when Election Day arrives, voters are given the option between voting for- or spending their votes on- a variety of products. The products are the candidates themselves. In order to sell themselves to the voters, politicians must use advertising to appeal to them more than their opponent does, much in the same way products are sold in the free market. Politicians do this by making promises to the voters: “Vote for me and I promise I will use my power to accomplish X, Y and Z.” Hopefully, the voters will decide that their vote will be spent to maximum effect if it gets them X, Y and Z (rather than the D, Q and R promised by a rival politician).

What we see, then, is that if we apply the principles of the market to politics, the primary job of the politician is not to accomplish anything at all. The primary job of a politician is to win elections. The reason why the system works at all is because in order to be elected, a politician must promise to do things; and in order to be reelected, a politician must have accomplishments to point to as evidence of his or her worthiness. It is this cycle of elections and promises that ultimately prevents us from planning for the future in any meaningful way.

In a system where elections are held every four years, the politician is forced to accomplish tasks that benefit the electorate so that he can sell himself during the next cycle. This might seem like a perfectly viable system, but unfortunately, it forces politicians to focus their energies on projects that pay dividends within the timeframe dictated by their election cycle. There is no incentive for a politician to invest his energy in a project that will pay off twenty years down the road. Therefore, American officials have no direct interest in what happens in twenty years, since their political life-spans are measured in much shorter increments.

Take the following example: An American President makes a televised speech in which he tells the country of a fantastic new plan for the country that will fix many severe problems. There is only one problem: the plan calls for raising taxes. While taxes will be high for a brief period, and the economy might suffer somewhat, enormous benefits can be expected ten years later when the plan finally comes to fruition. I do not need to tell you what will most likely happen to this President. Imagine, too, what will happen to his great, long term plan after he is booted out of office. It will be dismantled by another politician who was smart enough to promise the voters results they could appreciate in time to vote the next time around. Politicians in a democracy are only capable of seeing as far as the next election.

Imagine now the perspective of the dictator. A strongman who rules his country with an iron first can afford to take his time. This is not to say that a strongman cares nothing about selling himself to the people- keeping dissent down and staying popular is still an incentive. However, lacking elections, the dictator is not bound by a strict set of deadlines in the same way an American senator is. Chinese officials can institute plans that pay no dividends until ten or twenty years in the future, since a Chinese official can reasonably assume that he will still be in power twenty years later to reap the rewards of such forward thinking. Could you imagine an American leader instituting a plan that would pay off for his successor?

This line of thought should in no way be taken as a repudiation of democracy, or as a promotion of dictatorship. Instead, it should be taken as a warning to democracies out there in the world that when it comes to long-term planning, it might be a good idea to recognize that they are playing at a disadvantage. If they don’t, dictatorships might use that advantage in such a way as to make democracy all the more uncommon in the world.