Something a little different today. If you read this blog regularly you’ll know I rarely discuss politics, but today I want to address the subject of democracy.

By definition, democracy is a political system in which the entire population, or those eligible, choose representatives for a parliament and/or government. One immediate problem becomes apparent. If it isn’t obvious, I will explain why this is a concern. In a democratic system anyone who meets a minimum age can vote and can stand for office. Even people without formal education or political experience may run for public positions. In most democracies the only common restriction on voting or candidacy is age.

Let me invoke Socratic wisdom on this point. Socrates argued that letting people vote without educating them about governance is irresponsible. To cast an informed vote we need a solid understanding of the issues at hand. Wisdom should guide citizens when they vote. As another example, British wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill quipped, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” He intended it as a joke, but it contains a kernel of truth.

Democracy also carries the risk of majority tyranny. So long as a group or individual commands sufficient popular support, they can impose their will. For instance, if Party A wins 51% and Party B 49%, Party A can govern and pass laws that Party B opposes. The most extreme example of democracy’s failings occurred in Germany: the horrific National Socialist German Workers’ Party (the Nazi Party) rose to power through democratic elections. Much of the cruelty of that era was legally enacted in Germany; human rights and minority protections were ignored. Millions suffered under Nazism, and it was a democratic process that brought them to power. Historically, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis gained office in 1933 with over 17.2 million votes, roughly 43%. I don’t mean to imply that democracy inevitably produces evil, but it clearly can enable it.

Now consider alternatives. First, technocracy: a government composed of technical specialists in various fields. This can be superior for several reasons. Crucially, different areas of governance would be led by people trained and educated in those fields, those who understand economics, health, public services, and so on would make decisions in those domains. Restricting political office to expert elites could be a prudent approach.

The second alternative is epistocracy, which resembles technocracy. An epistocracy is governed by citizens who possess political knowledge. So which system do you think is preferable: democracy, epistocracy, or technocracy? None of these forms of government are prescribed in Scripture; this is simply something to ponder.