The Fallacy of American Democracy

America has been backsliding into competitive authoritarianism through undemocratic processes for decades. In recent years this backsliding has only accelerated. Unfortunately, our democratic deterioration has turned us into a competitive authoritarian form of government. Since America's founding, some in power have used different tactics to suppress and distort the people's will. These people who distort the Founding Fathers' intentions can be defined as the political elite. They abuse their positions of power in all branches of government: the legislature, executive, judicial, and newly created administrative state. America is a competitive authoritarian system due to the political elites use of gerrymandering of the legislative branch, the use of the electoral college, the undemocratic nature of the judiciary, corporate influence in the electoral process, and the creation of government institutions that serve the interests of the wealthy political class and not the people they were designed to protect, thus creating an illusion of the promise of American Democracy, and a country in which voters have insignificant influence in policy.     

First of all, it is important to define some terms. What is a democracy, illiberal democracy, and competitive authoritarian system? Does America fit any of these definitions? As defined in the paper The Rise in Competitive Authoritarianism, a democracy must meet four basic requirements: “1) Executives and legislatures are chosen through elections that are open, free, and fair; 2) virtually all adults possess the right to vote; 3) political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to criticize the government without reprisal, are broadly protected; and 4) elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” (Levitsky and Way, 2).  In illiberal democracies, citizens still have majority rule; however, systems are biased in how they treat opposition parties. This bias can come in the form of unfair and packed courts as well as gerrymandered districts that favor the incumbent party. Finally, in a competitive authoritarian system, the majority of the people cannot remove people from power they do not support. Also, if most citizens want a policy to change, it is improbable to happen unless those in power want that change too. In other words, competitive authoritarian regimes still have democratic institutions; however, these institutions are corrupted through biased courts, controlled media such as gatekeeping, agency capture by political loyalists, and gerrymandered districts. Some argue that America is one of the world's most robust democracies, a place where the people vote to decide how their country is governed. In reality, America is a competitive authoritarian system that has faced rapid democratic backsliding in the past few decades. Throughout Americans’ lives, we learn how America is a beacon of Democracy around the world. This paper will explore how the Government and institutions we thought were the pinnacle of Democracy are, in fact, undemocratic.   

One of the most evident reasons America is a competitive authoritarian system can be seen in the legislative branch. The process of gerrymandering corrupts the way Americans choose their representatives. Every ten years voting districts in the United States must be drawn. These are the districts in which voters choose their state and congressional representatives. Those who draw these districts have massive power over who gets actual representation in the political process. Politicians draw these districts in a very partisan manner. They abuse the process to benefit themselves and their political party. Some states have tried to end the practice of gerrymandering by having independent redistricting commissions draw the congressional districts in an attempt to be bipartisan and fair. However, these commissions only submit maps to be reviewed and the legislature has no obligation to accept them. Thus, political motivations get in the way of fair congressional districts even if an independent commission draws the districts.  

The process of gerrymandering is undemocratic and illiberal in nature. One of the most blatant examples of gerrymandering can be seen in North Carolina. North Carolina has been a battleground state for the past few decades. When Republicans drew statewide congressional districts in 2010, they gave themselves a massive advantage through gerrymandering. In statewide elections, the vote is usually even, with one party receiving a couple more percent of the vote than the other. 2020 was no different, Republicans won 49.99% of the popular vote and Democrats won 49.06% of the popular vote. Due to gerrymandering from 2010 Republicans held 69 seats to Democrats 51 seats. If most people in North Carolina want to remove their Republican members from power, they cannot do so. In the paper "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism," Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way state that "the coexistence of democratic rules and autocratic methods aimed at keeping incumbents in power creates an inherent source of instability" (Levitsky, Way, 4). This quote perfectly represents the kind of gerrymandering we see in the U.S. Incumbents corrupt the democratic process of voting and turn it into a tool to keep themselves in power. They cannot steal elections, as that would cause instability. Instead, incumbents allow the existence of democratic processes; however, they subtly diminish the political power of their opponents through gerrymandering. In a liberal democracy, voters pick their representatives. In the U.S, a competitive authoritarian system, politicians pick their voters.   

Not only does America's legislature get picked in an undemocratic form, but also our President is picked undemocratically. In the United States, the President is not chosen by whoever wins the popular vote or whomever the plurality of people support. Instead, the President is chosen by the electoral college, a system in which people in each state vote for the candidate they want to win. Whoever gets the most votes in a given state wins all of the "Electoral Votes" of that state, except for Maine and Nebraska. Thus, this allows for the possibility that someone can win the most electoral votes but lose the popular vote and still become President. Most recently in the 2016 election, Donald Trump became President by winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. Critics of this argument say that the Electoral College is not undemocratic because misalignment between popular vote and electoral college has rarely ever happened. These critics also say that the Electoral College is important to give small states a say. It is important to have the voices of all people heard, however, with demographic changes over the past decades the Electoral College has become unable to democratically choose presidents. In 2020 Biden won the popular vote by around 7 million votes. This fact is accurate; however, what is often not said is that Trump came within 80,000 votes of winning in several battleground states. (Swasey, 5) If 80,000 people in a few battleground states changed their minds and voted for Trump, he would have become President. If the people want to remove a President, such as Trump from power they need varying majorities to do so. In the case of the 2020 election the opposition candidate needed 7 million votes to barely win the electoral college. No other leading democracy in the world chooses its leader in this way. Competitive authoritarian systems create an illusion of Democracy, and the Electoral College appears to be a massive democratic illusion.       

A country's court system is arguably the most crucial governmental institution. Courts are meant to be impartial, defend the rule of law, and be a check on the power of politically motivated figures in the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court, and more broadly the judicial branch of U.S government, has become an undemocratic super-legislature over the last few decades. The executive branch is in charge of appointing judges to serve in courts across the country. The Trump administration was able to appoint many judges in a very brief period of time without the input of the American people. The result of our undemocratic systems has allowed nearly a third of all federal judges to serve lifetime terms and were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote. Those in favor of the current system say that Americans did have a say through the election of their Senators. These senators confirm or reject the presidents court nominations. These judges were confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate that represented 41 million fewer people than the Democratic minority. As stated by Adam Cole in his article The Supreme Court is about to hit an undemocratic milestone, "The imbalanced Senate has created the least democratic Supreme Court in modern history" (Cole, 2). These judges issue rulings that can significantly affect American society and the everyday lives of citizens. Fareed Zakaria states on the American Judicial system “What is distinctive about the American system is not how democratic it is but rather how undemocratic it is, placing as it does multiple constraints on electoral majorities. Of its three branches of government, one—arguably paramount—is headed by nine unelected men and women with life tenure” (Zakaria, 3). A democratic country would not allow judges to be appointed to lifetime positions without the majority of its citizens say. Lifetime appointments for judges do protect the courts from political pressure. However, this can cause an even greater disconnect between the American people and the judicial system. This disconnect is most often found in the cumulative power of life time appointments to The Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court is the most important court in America and has caused great harm due to its undemocratic nature. Many Americans believe the Supreme Court is meant to uphold the rights of all Americans. Yet, most Americans do not know that the Supreme Court has been a violator of human rights in several cases. For example in thecase Plessy v Fergusson(1896), the Supreme Court found segregation constitutional; in Korematsu v United States(1944) it allowed for the internment of Japanese Americans, and in Buck V Bell(1927), it upheld the forced sterilization of those considered feeble-minded. The Supreme Court has been an interpreter of laws that have allowed for undemocratic outcomes. More recently, the Supreme Court has allowed for the complete destruction of America's Democracy. The Supreme Court has rolled back parts of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v Holder(2013), made it extremely difficult to regulate campaign financing in Citizens United (2010), and has stated that federal courts do not have the right to place limits on partisan Gerrymandering in Rucho v Common Cause Decision(2019) . Nikolas Bowie, in his article "How the Supreme Court Dominates our Democracy," states about the supreme court that "By declining to enforce federal laws because it disagrees with Congress about whether they are constitutionally appropriate, the Supreme Court has functioned as an anti-democratic institution that produces anti-democratic results" (Bowie,4). Not only can the Supreme Court not enforce laws, but it can also strike down laws it deems unconstitutional. This is a process called judicial review. The unelected Supreme court can strike down laws that are passed by an elected legislature. In democracies, courts are independent and protect the rights of society's most vulnerable. In America, the courts have little accountability to the people, are not impartial, and allow undemocratic systems to remain in place.   

Not only are the politicians and judicial systems undemocratic in the U.S , but our government agencies and institutions, which are the foundation of the country, are also captured vessels of different political interests pursuing competitive authoritarianism. Some have referred to these institutions as the administrative state or the fourth branch of government. It has become almost separate from the executive. Large webs of government agencies with enormous amounts of power are run by unelected bureaucrats. Some in Government argue that the administrative state is there to help the people and that these agencies ensure fairness and the rule of law in our society. The good-natured idea of an administrative state that makes government more efficient and equitable has turned into an undemocratic fourth branch of Government that has little accountability to the citizens it governs. John Tierney writes in his article The Tyranny of the Administrative State that "Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution" (Tierney, 2). The so-called administrative state consists of 450 agencies and 2.7 million workers (Cooper, 1). The domain in which the administrative state operates is vast and far-reaching across all parts of American life and society. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court went as far to state that "The Framers could hardly have envisioned... the authority administrative agencies now hold over our economic, social, and political activities." The founders understood that all the branches of government would try and draw "all power into its impetuous vortex" (Federalist 48). This concentration of power by the executive and specifically the administrative state has accelerated in recent decades.    

The administrative state usually consists of unelected "experts" and career bureaucrats who govern similar to that of royalty in Europe. Due to contracts and unions it is hard to remove them these people from power. Agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency are considered by some to be necessary to regulate the fast-moving and complex world we live in. Though this might be true, it is not a reason for the American people to allow a few experts to decide extremely complex matters on their own. These agencies often act undemocratically and are causing democratic backsliding. In fact, the creators of these agencies, that make up the administrative state, admitted they were undemocratic. President Woodrow Wilson was responsible for creating a large amount of the administrative state we know today. In his essay The Study of Administration He stated, "The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes..." He was specifically talking about new immigrants arriving in the country and African American voters. His answer to too much democracy was to create executive agencies that had tremendous amounts of power over the government and, to this day, are greatly shielded from democratic backlash (Wilson, I). The power these agencies have is similar to the issuing of royal decrees, instead unelected "experts" issue guidance letters and orders. In Christopher DeMuth's' paper, "Can the administrative state be tamed?" he states, in reference to the executive branch and its different agencies, that:   

Executive Government began to change in fundamental respects in the early 2000s. It became more "unilateralist"—acting independently of Congress's laws and even budget appropriations. It also became more "fusionist"—combining regulation of private firms with government operations that competed or collaborated with those firms. These changes moved American Government further from traditional legal and constitutional norms (DeMuth).  

These agencies are often used by the executive branch and different corporate interests to get around the legislature. Some might argue that Congress can take away the power of an administrative agency at any moment although true, it rarely happens. Many congressmen like the power that comes with the administrative state when it is under the control of their political party. Often times policies and bills are deadlocked and cannot get through Congress. Therefore, those in office that support the bill allow the executive to subvert the will of the people and use the administrative state to achieve their goals. For example, President Obama wanted to regulate Carbon Dioxide in 2009. His own party controlled the legislature, and even then, he did not have the support in Congress to regulate Carbon Dioxide. When asked he said, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone” and proceeded to order the EPA to declare it a pollutant so that it could then be regulated. Whether or not CO2 is a pollutant is not the issue here. Instead, it is evidence of how the executive branch uses the administrative state to issue "decrees" and subvert the will of Congress and the people in an undemocratic way. Though the policy was upheld by the Supreme Court it could not get through a democratically elected Congress. It is likely that the EPA was correct in what they did, however, it is a slippery slope of evidence of the administrative state implementing policies that do not have the democratic support of the people.   

The Undemocratic and illiberal nature of America's three, and newer fourth branch of government, has contributed to the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of Americans. The data described here show just how much the U.S has become a competitive authoritarian country. Through undemocratic systems in the four branches of government, wealthy and political elites have been able to take almost complete control over the government's power structure. Americans can indeed vote and replace Republicans with Democrats and vice versa. However, this ability to vote often has essentially no impact on policy. A study released in 2014 called Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens stated that 90 percent of voters' opinions have zero impact on policy. Professor Martin Giles and Benjamin Page looked at data from around 200 public opinion surveys and compared this data with policies that became laws. A quote from their study sums up their findings, "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" (Gillens and Page 6). Those who do influence policy are wealthy and well-connected Americans and corporations.  

The only difference between America and an undemocratic oligarchy is that America has institutions and branches of government that give an illusion of democratic rule. American pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, and energy companies spend billions of dollars a year lobbying Congress. In return, they receive trillions in taxpayer support. (Gillens and Page, 4). These entities and corporations have benefited and supported America's slide to democratic authoritarianism. When people say that America is still a democracy, ask them how that can be when large companies dictate policy that average citizens have no say in. This power structure all raises the question: How can a country in which 90 percent of its citizens have no say in how the government runs and the wealthy get trillions of dollars in taxpayer money every year be called a democracy?     

Elected officials spend 30- 70 percent of their time in office fundraising. This is only more evidence of how beholden America's representatives are too special interests and the wealthy. Running campaigns is expensive, and only those who fundraise can win. Over the last century, the cost of campaigning has exploded. More specifically, the cost of campaigning has risen sharply from around 2 million dollars in 1908 to 2 billion dollars in 2012 (Gillens and Page 5). Convincing evidence can be seen in one of our most essential branches of government. In the legislature, more specifically, the U.S Senate, the amount of money that a candidate needs to raise has risen to around $14,531 every single day as of 2014. Only 0.05 percent of Americans can donate more than $10,000 in any election cycle (Gillens and Page 3). In a democracy, every person has one vote and the same political power and say in how a country should be managed. However, in the United States, corporate interference in political campaigns has made it so those with money and influence have outsized amounts of control and influence over policy that becomes law.             

The power that the four branches of government have over the American people has grown drastically over the last few decades. This has led to America becoming an undemocratic competitive authoritarian country. The effects of America's undemocratic government have had a devastating effect on the political power of the bottom 90 percent of the country. The power of the administrative state, executive branch, judiciary, and legislature has expanded to such a point that it has the power to dictate how Americans run their everyday lives. This enormous amount of government power and the use of undemocratic institutions and systems have driven the United States toward competitive authoritarianism. Many Americans might be surprised to hear this; however, this slide toward authoritarianism in other countries and throughout history is rarely ever sudden or seen in one exact moment. Instead, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt state in their book How Democracies Die, "The erosion of Democracy takes place piecemeal, often in baby steps. Each individual step seems minor – none appears to truly threaten Democracy. Indeed, Government moves to subvert Democracy frequently enjoy a veneer of legality: They are approved by parliament or ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Many of them are adopted on the guise of pursuing some legitimate- even laudable- public objective" (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 6). America is still a country where people vote and freely debate political elections. Many voters have no idea that they live in a competitive authoritarian system, and the vast majority of voters have no say in how the country is run.   

The best way to solve America's slide to authoritarianism is to remove the mechanisms that allow the political elite to use undemocratic institutions to benefit their interests. The power of the administrative state, the corporate interests in the legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary has become so large that it would be difficult to reform from the inside. These institutions need to be protectors of freedom and defend the will of all people. One reason for Democratic backsliding in the United States is that America's branches of Government are naturally undemocratic and have, at times, encouraged authoritarian systems to gain power. This authoritarianism has infected, influenced, and corrupted the government and institutions that Americans and the world has placed its trust in. Thus, America will remain a competitive authoritarian system until the government's trust and transparency are restored. This trust can only be restored when there is less government to enforce undemocratic systems and institutions. It is unlikely that the Congresspeople, judges, and experts who benefit from the system will give up their power. The only way to reign in the power of these institutions is through mechanisms given to the people in the constitution. One example of this could be a Convention of States. States would come together to amend the constitution and take a metaphorical ax to the administrative state and undemocratic systems, such as the electoral college, Gerrymandering, and undemocratic courts that are highly prevalent in American society today. Amendments such as term limits in government positions, limits on corporate influence in policy making, and banning partisan gerrymandering have the ability to stop Americas slide to authoritarianism. The U.S still has the power to change the course of our slide into authoritarianism by using the strengths and flexibilities of the U.S Constitution, Bill of Rights, and America’s freedom loving people. Democracy can still be saved by Americans past, present, and future, who believe that progress is the essence of our democracy even when we fall short of our own vision of the American dream. 

Works Cited:

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. “Elections without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 Apr. 2002, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17196. 

DeMuth, Christopher. “Can the Administrative State Be Tamed?” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 29 Feb. 2016, https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/1/121/1751551?login=true. 

Gillens , Martin, and Benjamin I Page . “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest ...” Perspectives on Politics , American Political Science Association , Sept. 2014, https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf. 

Bowie, Nikolas. “Perspective | How the Supreme Court Dominates Our Democracy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 July 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/16/supreme-court-anti-democracy/. 

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Broadway Books, 2019. 

Swasey, Benjamin, and Connie Hanzhang Jin. “Narrow Wins in These Key States Powered Biden to the Presidency.” NPR, NPR, 2 Dec. 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency. 

Cole, Adam. “The Supreme Court Is about to Hit an Undemocratic Milestone.” Vox, Vox, 28 Sept. 2020, https://www.vox.com/21456620/supreme-court-scotus-undemocratic-milestone-minority-rule. 

Tierney, John. “The Tyranny of the Administrative State.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 9 June 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tyranny-of-the-administrative-state-1497037492. 

Steveliesman. “Majority of Americans Support Progressive Policies Such as Higher Minimum Wage, Free College.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 Mar. 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html. 

Cooper, Charles J., et al. “Confronting the Administrative State.” National Affairs, 2022, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/confronting-the-administrative-state. 

Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration.” Teaching American History, 10 Sept. 2021, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration/. 

Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs, 18 May 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy.