Over the last few years, the health of American democracy has come under great scrutiny. Polling routinely shows that Americans are concerned that democratic institutions aren’t working as well as they ought to. Inevitably, this brings up the question of whether we can mend our problems or if the system of representative democracy itself is fundamentally broken.
I served as a representative for a good bit of my life, watched the system from the inside with all its faults and all its glories, and believe firmly in it. Our strengths as a nation—our wealth and culture, our opportunities and human resources—developed in an environment that was built from our founding documents.
In fact, I would argue that some of our key characteristics as a people spring from the demands of selfgovernance and electing representatives. Wherever I’ve gone around the country, I’ve noticed an impressive and restless desire to improve our communities and states for everyone who lives in them. A representative democracy encourages this.
As concerns about our institutions have grown, however, so has interest in alternatives. Many people are pushing for more direct democracy. Others want to move away from representative democracy, limit the power of the legislature, and in some cases see an advantage in a strongman leader.
I have to confess; I have trouble seeing us move in either direction. A lot of Americans like the idea of direct democracy, but I have trouble seeing how 325 million people could make decisions on even major policy questions at the federal level. It would make it impossible to have the kind of deliberation or common-groundseeking that Congress, when it’s working, can practice.
Those attracted to strong-man leadership see value in a president who can make policy with little or no consultation with the Congress or other elected bodies. This, of course, is authoritarianism, an idea many Americans find unattractive for governing the country.
My point is this: We can’t look at representative democracy in isolation but have to compare it to the alternatives. And the alternatives, I’d argue, don’t stack up. Even 230 years on, our system remains an experiment in self-government. It seems to me that the question is not “Is it perfect?” Rather, it is: “Can it improve itself?” The answer lies with ordinary citizens to step up and take advantage of the opportunities the system affords us to do just that.
Lee Hamilton is a Senior Advisor for the Indiana University Center on Representative Government; a Distinguished Scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies; and a Professor of Practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.