The Illusion of Democracy

By: Gai Manoah James

Nairobi, Kenya– I’ll start with the most laughable part of it all. In a democracy, it is claimed that people have the freedom to choose who rules over them. They accomplish this by listening to the candidates explain how well they can lead, and then the voters select the candidates based on what they [candidates] have said.

It might be more complex than that. For example, it may entail investigating the candidate’s historical performance in other positions they have held or the opinions of others, the campaign staff. Otherwise, that is basically it.

The issue lies in the fact that most people in third-world countries lack or have incorrect information about a variety of topics related to governance. They lack the knowledge and resources necessary to do background checks on candidates. In essence, their vote is profoundly uninformed.

When this astounding number of uneducated people choose a leader, the political structure is considered fair and democratic. But shortly after, the country descends into crisis as the leader demonstrates a significant degree of incompetence. Unfortunately, some highly educated people find this surprising. The fact that they’re surprised that a person elected generally by illiterates turns out to be incompetent, betray, to a greater extent, their cognitive abilities.

This illusion has two layers. First, despite having the power to choose their leader, people are nonetheless influenced and manipulated in ways that weaken their will—influences like threats, disinformation, and bribery are prevalent, especially in Africa. To what extent are these people free?

Second, despite their ignorance of the candidates they are choosing, the majority is assumed to know who the right ruler is. We continue to believe that the strict democratic methods of electing the best leader are still valid, even in cases where the bulk of those whose votes determine the decision are deeply living in the wilderness and cut off from civilization.

Some may argue that giving the people power is the true goal of democracy, rather than electing the best leader. That’s precisely the argument I’m attempting to make—that democracy, with all of its machinations, fails to choose the best leader and, by extension, also gives people the power and space to make wrong decisions.

You may have noticed that I have left out some of the more blatant weaknesses in the democratic system, such as the fact that most elections are rigged. I have focused on the inherent flaws that arise organically from the engineering of the system. These inherent flaws will persist for as long as the system exists.

You might be wondering what would be the best alternative to democracy. There is none. At least, none better than it. Thus far, democracy appears to be the most viable system. It makes sense, considering how well it tricks citizens into believing that they are in charge of their destiny. We therefore hope to maintain it that way.

That doesn’t mean we can’t get better, though. Numerous recommendations exist for enhancing democracy, such as restricting voting to those who are able to make more informed choices, controlling political campaigns, etc.

In South Sudan, in particular, many untrue stories circulate about leaders. People who believe these stories, mostly the uneducated, should simply be unfit to cast a vote. Ideally, it would be better if only those capable of analyzing information could be given the right to vote. We can start with college students upwards, or even high school students. By giving this suggestion, I do not mean that educated people are not liable to misinformation. I think that they are less liable, and this gives them advantage.