Introduction: Why We Must Understand Democracy
On December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law. From declaration to revocation, only six hours passed. Both the ruling and opposition parties pointed fingers at each other regarding the cause. However, one fact remains indisputable: both President Yoon and the opposition bloc holding 198 seats were the choices of the people.
In a democratic society, political power is formed through the votes of citizens, and those chosen by the majority exercise that power. The principle of majority rule holds absolute binding force, even when the choice may harm the voters themselves. The rise of the Nazis and the execution of Socrates were both results of majority decisions. The current political deadlock in Korea is no different. These examples demonstrate that democratic decisions do not necessarily lead to wise choices.
As Plato feared, is democracy destined to be governed by the folly of the majority? What must we do to create a democracy that transcends the selfishness of the many?
We live in a democratic system, yet we know little about democracy itself. We often uncritically accept decisions simply because they were made through democratic procedures. However, as citizens of a democracy, we must thoroughly understand its strengths and weaknesses. Maximizing its advantages and minimizing its disadvantages begins with such understanding.
Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835) is a classic that deepens such understanding. Despite being nearly 200 years old, this work is regarded as a remarkably accurate predictor of how democracy would unfold. Tocqueville analyzes the essence of democracy with a balanced perspective, examining both its possibilities and limitations. According to him, the driving force of democracy is self-interest. Yet America's democratic success was due to citizens' deep understanding of the judicial system and their sense of community rooted in popular sovereignty. He argues that the jury system and decentralization are the key mechanisms that cultivate this consciousness.
What then should we do for a better democracy? Let us seek direction using Tocqueville's insights as our guide.
Part 1: The Double-Edged Sword of Democracy—Self-Interest
Let us first consider our representatives—politicians. While there are certainly excellent politicians, it is not difficult to find those who appear less capable than oneself. Any citizen interested in politics has likely lamented, "How can such a person represent me?"
Yet Tocqueville (1835/2022) acknowledges that people lacking ability and virtue are often elected in democracies while arguing this is not necessarily a disadvantage (p. 163). In aristocracies, officials are selected through internal vetting processes within aristocratic society, often resulting in individuals of superior ability and morality. However, they tend to represent the interests of the aristocratic class, making decisions that diverge from the interests of the majority of citizens. The interests of the aristocratic few and the citizen majority are inherently in conflict.
In contrast, democratic representatives tend to be elected based on their ability to persuade the masses and their promises to benefit specific groups, rather than personal virtue or ability.[1] However, since one must win majority support to gain power in a democracy, the interests pursued by elected representatives generally align with those of the majority (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 163). Consequently, democracy guides the nation toward the long-term benefit of the majority.
Furthermore, Tocqueville believes that even if democratic representatives are incompetent or corrupt, they cannot permanently harm the community (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 163). Short terms allow for replacement before any one person can cause irreparable damage. Thus, democracy has inherent self-correcting mechanisms, steering the nation toward the majority's benefit, however slowly.
The idea that individual self-interest ultimately converges toward the common good is fascinating. It recalls Adam Smith's "invisible hand." This paradox—where each pursues their own interest yet the result benefits all—explains how democracy can continue to grow even when representatives lacking virtue are elected.
However, self-interest as a driving force has two sides. Human self-interest evolved to respond more strongly to immediate rewards than distant achievements. For ancestors surviving in uncertain environments, immediate gains were more important than uncertain future rewards.[2] This reward system leads us to respond more strongly to immediate gratification like YouTube Shorts than to long-term self-improvement.
Therefore, democracy based on self-interest also tends to pursue short-term satisfaction over long-term vision. Unless citizens and politicians consciously orient themselves toward the long-term future, democracy is likely to favor myopic choices.
One might object: "Wouldn't a group sensing crisis shift toward future-oriented choices?" However, the 2008 global financial crisis showed that groups can persist in myopic behavior despite clear warning signs.
While there are various analyses of the financial crisis's causes, Choi (2009) identifies investment banks' short-term performance evaluation systems as a major factor. Because risky derivatives generated enormous short-term profits, financial institutions focused on maximizing short-term gains rather than long-term risk management. As a result, bad loans accumulated, eventually leading to market-wide collapse. In short, even financial institutions responsible for credit management can be swayed toward short-term rewards when incentives for long-term interests are absent, causing systemic collapse. Since then, the financial industry has improved reward systems through long-term incentive schemes like Restricted Stock Units.[3]
Democratic political systems are equally vulnerable to myopic choices. Politicians' terms are short, and when governments change, the outcomes of long-term policies become the next administration's responsibility. Thus, incumbent politicians have insufficient incentive to make uncertain choices for the future.
Korea's National Pension reform is a prime example. Despite the predictable future depletion of the National Pension due to demographic structure, discussions to address this have stalled (Lim, 2023). Pension reform is essential for future generations but is pushed down the political priority list because it offers no immediate benefit to current voters. Consequently, even predictable crises are not adequately prepared for.
Democracy lacks institutional mechanisms for long-term consideration of national interests. After the financial crisis, the financial industry was able to partially correct myopic attitudes stemming from self-interest by introducing long-term performance-linked compensation. However, it is structurally difficult to bring about such changes in reward systems within democracy.
Of course, politicians who win re-election can pursue policies with a longer horizon. But since re-election depends on voter choice, politicians are incentivized to focus on promises with visible short-term results rather than long-term vision. Consequently, short-term benefits to win voter support are likely to take priority over long-term national interests.
Is it then impossible to make democracy orient toward the long-term future? Tocqueville thinks not. If the majority can look beyond immediate interests to the distant future, democracy can become even stronger. He argues that democracy grows when citizens take ownership and contemplate their community's future together.
How then can citizens develop such ownership? According to Tocqueville, this becomes possible when citizens directly experience the rule of law and internalize community values. He particularly highlights the jury system as a key mechanism for democratic civic education.
Part 2: Reinforcing Democracy—Communal Experience of Democracy
Tocqueville (1835/2022) believed that among America's various institutions, the jury system serves a practical educational function in fostering the rule of law and democratic civic consciousness. The jury system is one in which ordinary citizens, randomly selected from among those with citizenship, participate in trials to determine a defendant's guilt or innocence. While the jury system existed in England when Tocqueville wrote, eligibility was limited to aristocrats. In America, however, any citizen could serve as a juror (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 50).
Tocqueville believed that citizens participating as jurors, in the process of judging their neighbors, come to realize that they themselves can be judged by the same standards. Through the jury experience, citizens learn that they must take responsibility for their actions and internalize social obligations and concern for others. This ultimately contributes to restraining self-interest harmful to the community (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 53).
Citizens internalizing the rule of law themselves is important because it serves as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. The majority in a democratic system holds absolute power and is sometimes tempted to transcend even the laws they themselves created (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 34). Moreover, the majority demands the right not to have their feelings hurt. Even truth is rejected if it contradicts the majority's sensibilities, and those who offend the majority's feelings are socially ostracized and silenced (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 36).
To prevent this tyranny of the majority, there is no fundamental solution other than the majority themselves developing mature civic consciousness that respects individual rights. Therefore, the jury system, which awakens awareness of individual rights, functions as an important institutional mechanism supporting democracy.
However, the jury system alone cannot cultivate affection for the community. Affection for the community stems from a sense of efficacy—feeling that one is contributing to and being respected by that community. To feel such efficacy, the community must be small enough for individuals to perceive. While all humanity belongs to the global community, its cohesion is weaker than that of national communities; national communities are less cohesive than local communities, and local communities less than families. Therefore, for affection for a community to form, the community must be appropriately small, and members must feel it is worth contributing to.
Tocqueville argues that decentralization is the key factor in forming this communal affection. According to him, America's decentralized power structure contributes to cultivating active citizens with public consciousness (Tocqueville, 1835/2022, p. 117). In America, each state is guaranteed considerable autonomy and authority. This leads citizens to perceive their state as a free and powerful community worthy of their dedication.
Pride in the autonomy of one's region grows alongside affection for that region, leading to active political participation. This activity is accompanied by warm attachment to one's community. Ultimately, the short-term, private self-interest that democracy can engender is transformed into dedication to the community, enabling better collective choices.
Conclusion: For a Better Democracy
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) publishes an annual Democracy Index for countries worldwide.[4] As of 2023, Korea ranked 22nd out of 167 countries and was classified as a "full democracy" (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2024, p. 9). This ranking is higher than the United States, which ranked 29th.
While the 2024 martial law incident may cause a decline in the next evaluation, Korea's democracy has a relatively solid foundation compared to many countries suffering from authoritarianism or civil war. In this context, the martial law incident provided an opportunity to reflect on whether Korean democracy is functioning properly. If the EIU assessment is accurate, Korea has already achieved full democracy. However, from Tocqueville's perspective, we need to reflect on whether we are properly directing self-interest—democracy's driving force—toward the future.
Tocqueville believed that the jury system and decentralization could serve as institutional mechanisms to mitigate private, myopic self-interest. Applying this to Korea, we need to reconsider that political participation has been limited to elections and examine the Seoul-centered, centralized structure. Of course, the United States differs from Korea as a federal nation with a long history of decentralization, where each state has its own constitution and three branches of government. Korea has its own unique history, where citizens built democracy together through winning direct presidential elections and expanding participatory democracy.
Building on this historical asset, we must seek new forms of political participation for the community's long-term vision that transcend individual short-term interests. The tendency for majority choices to become myopic may be because there have been insufficient opportunities to recognize others' rights and internalize a sense of community belonging. To move toward a better future while unifying a divided society—not merely electing representatives—a deep understanding of democracy suited to Korea's context is essential.