I recently listened to a seven-year-old lecture by Rowan Williams at Keele University (North Stafforshire, U.K.) in which he described elements of democracy that cannot be surrendered without losing democracy altogether. Among other things, he argued that the executive in Washington, D.C., was doing its best to dismantle the integrity of other governmental institutions so the executive would be the only one remaining. The president at the time was Donald Trump in his first term, and preserving and strengthening American democracy was not his intent. I have reflected on the lecture for several days and offer the following.
Given Mr. Trump’s notorious ignorance of anything not of immediate benefit to him, it is likely others encouraged his belief that the presidency could function as a form of authoritarian rule, avoiding the difficulties of messy democratic processes.
A healthy democracy, Williams observed, is an argumentative democracy—one in which voices are heard and citizens listen as they work toward acceptable agreements about what is best for the nation. A healthy democracy requires the party in power to understand its responsibility for the well-being of those not in power. Even highly partisan agendas must take into account not only how they may improve conditions for supporters, but also whether they create difficulties or injustices for others.
Because no party or coalition remains in power for more than a season, it is in its own interest to govern with this awareness, recognizing its turn at being out of power will surely come.
If an argumentative polity is essential to a healthy democracy, then even the most strongly held opinions must give due respect to informed judgment and to the need for the uninformed to become informed so they can offer their own. Those most certain they are right and others wrong must remember they know only in part, and even firm convictions must remain, in some measure, provisional. The current administration has made clear it has little interest in such discipline—if it cannot have its own way, no one will get anything. Those not in power, including minorities of every kind, are treated as irrelevant to a vision of America governed by a single executive for the benefit of supporters.
Public voices often appeal to the “will of the people” as a central truth to be heard and obeyed. This is a mistake. “The will of the people” does not exist as a coherent reality. The MAGA movement, for instance, claims to speak for it, but speaks only for itself. Despite its dominance of public attention, it remains one faction among many, and not the largest. Public polling is often presented as revealing the will of the people, but it cannot do so. At best, it offers a snapshot of opinion—some informed, much not—at a given moment. It may serve limited purposes, but tells us nothing about the quality of those opinions. Much of the public remains poorly informed about matters beyond daily concerns. Opinions are often shaped by prejudice, rumor, social circles, and unexamined trust in preferred news sources.
A particularly dangerous misuse of this idea is the belief that a majority constitutes a mandate to which minorities must submit without objection—the “tyranny of the majority.” It is frequently invoked during campaigns and conveniently forgotten afterward, yet can become political reality when a legislature is indifferent to the well-being of those outside its majority. Presidents, too, have appealed to it from the bully pulpit when approval ratings creep above fifty percent.
The unreliable “will of the people” is one reason I am not a fan of referenda on state ballots. Difficult issues require responsible deliberation—what Williams would call an argumentative polity—not the blunt instrument of mass voting driven by expensive and emotionally manipulative campaigns. Referenda are too often decided by those who can afford the most persuasive advertising, appealing to emotion while skirting serious examination of consequences.
All of this leads to a single conclusion: those in power must remain keenly aware of their moral responsibility to protect the well-being of those who are not. Critically important to any democracy is the integrity of institutions that provide checks and balances, uphold the rule of law, and remind us what is legal is not always what is moral or just. An administration determined to weaken or dismantle those institutions poses a direct threat to democracy. The consequences are neither unknown nor speculative. A nation abandoning these safeguards ceases to be a credible leader among free societies. It risks becoming a place marked not by justice and prosperity, but by want, oppression, and fear.