Democracy and Heterocracy

Though 'autocracy' parses as 'self-rule', comparable to 'autonomy', it has come to mean, to the contrary, 'rule over others'.  Thus, a Democracy is literally a collective Autocracy, a characterization that is prone to misunderstanding in common parlance.  Still, unburdened by that distortion, is 'Heterocracy', meaning 'rule of others', in which 'of' can mean either 'by' or 'over'.  Thus, what is commonly known as 'Autocracy' is, literally, Heterocracy, and, likewise, Heterocracy is antithetical to Democracy. For example, someone who does not vote on the grounds that they are 'apolitical', is, rather, a Heterocrat, since, regardless of presumed indifference, is still conducting their life in accordance with the governance and laws of others, and, so, is anti-Democrat.

American Experiment, Voting Right, Voting Responsibilty

One of the successes of the American Experiment has been its stability--the seamless continuity of its electoral operations for more than two centuries, uninterrupted by even the Civil War.  Only partly successful has been the cultivation of respect for universal voting rights, whether de facto or de jure.  In contrast, a significant failure has been the complement of a Right to Vote--a Responsibility to Vote, the general non-recognition of which proves that failure.  That voting is perceived, by even those who do vote, as an imposition on those who do not, is an implicit indication of a privileging of Oligarchy, i. e. of a Polity in which Many are ruled by a Few.  For, by not voting, one allows others to determine the conditions of one's life, a concession that is not nullified by indifference.

Democracy and Ochlocracy

The concept of Tyranny of the Majority has sometimes been formulated as Ochlocracy--Rule of the Mob, which some have classified as a degenerate form of Democracy.  Now, one dubious aspect of these associations is that, as Aristotle points out, and as has been repeatedly proven throughout History, the use of a mob as a tool of political intimidation is at least as much a feature of Oligarchies as it is one of Democracies.  Furthermore, that the behavior of a mob can be accurately characterized as 'unruly' tends to expose the formulation 'Mob Rule' as oxymoronic, i. e. a mob lacks the capacity for sustained deliberation that ruling requires.  Finally, according to Nietzsche, perhaps the most acute of its critics, the tendency towards degeneracy in Democracy consists in the cultivation of timidity and homogeneity, i. e. the characteristics of a herd of sheep, not those of an angry mob.  So, the possibility that the danger of a Democracy deteriorating into an Ochlocracy seems more an expression of the condescension or fear of an Oligarch than the product of sound analysis.

Popular Vote and Electoral College

Hamilton conceives the Electoral College as a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority--the 'Hamilton Electors' are free to diverge from the constituencies that they represent if they judge that a winner of the popular vote in them is a demagogic threat to the voters who are in the minority.  Now, of the 538 members of the E. C., 100 correspond to the number of Senators in Congress, two per state.  Thus, the discrepancy between the Electoral and Popular votes, controversial in elections such as the most recent one, originates in the structure of the Senate, in which each state has two Senators, regardless of its population.  In other words, the abolition of the Electoral College would not eliminate the disproportion that is ingredient in the everyday functioning of the Senate.  There has also been some confusion in the application of the concept of tyranny of the majority in this election--Clinton being the majority vote-getter, an electoral vote in the name of curtailing potential tyranny of the majority would be one in favor of Trump, the converse of what some have insisted upon.  So, the controversy over the Electoral College in this election has been somewhat misplaced and misinformed.

Democracy, Power, Filibuster

The U. S. Constitution empowers a citizen to vote, a power that can be exercised to a lesser or greater degree, depending on factors such as knowledge of issues, interest in available candidates, etc.  But, voting Power is not ruling Power, primarily because a vote can be a losing one.  In such cases, one can be as powerless in a Democracy as in a Monarchy. Now, what in the U. S. Democracy defends against the tyrannization that can be unconditional in the latter are procedural mechanisms, notably the 60% threshold for ending a filibuster in the Senate.  So, the novel element in the American Experiment consists in neither its Democracy nor its Power to Rule, but in its perhaps unprecedented degree of Empowerment of the Ruled.

Knowledge, Power, Democracy

The expression "Knowledge is power", which has ancient roots, is revived in the Modern era by Bacon.  But, while in the common popular usage, Knowledge and Power are implicitly distinct, e. g. in the interpretation 'Information can be advantageously useful', Bacon asserts an identity, an elaboration of the concept of Know-How.  In other words, he proposes that Knowledge is essentially Practical, and that there is no Power without Knowledge.  Now, while his primary focus is Scientific methodology, the latter clause is applicable to Political Philosophy.  In particular, it applies to the process of voting, when a voter does not fully understand the candidates and issues, either through laziness or being deceived.  In that case, voting is no exercise of Power, so the process is a superficial mockery of Democracy, which, as has been previously discussed, entails the empowerment of all voters.

Democracy and Empowerment

The standard definition of Democracy, 'rule of the people', does not specify which people.  Thus, over the centuries, 'the people' has been delimited according to class, gender, race, etc.  Typically, that delimitation is effected by restricting the vote.  Still, even universal voting can fall short of an actualization of Democracy.  For, a voter can be less than fully engaged in the process, for example, when none of the options are desirable, or when one is inadequately informed about candidates or issues.  Ruling presupposes Empowerment, and in these cases, the possession of Power is deficient in some respect, e. g. not knowing what one is doing is being not in full control of one's behavior.  Furthermore, as has been previously discussed, Democracy is primarily a Political Genesis, not a Structure.  So, an alternative definition of it is: 'The society in which maximum Empowerment entails equality of Empowerment.