The Paradoxes of ‘Hyperdemocracy’
Minjun Kwak
Among the annals of political philosophy that aim to establish governance structures
embodying ideals of liberty and justice, few concepts have captured an impassioned discourse
than that of democracy. From the ancient seminal Athenian experiments in direct democracy
where citizens participate directly in decision-making via assemblies and juries, to the modern
Nation-States where its principles ostensibly reign in constitutional systems that establish checks
and balances between different branches of the government, the emancipatory view of self-rule
has catalysed the ascension of civilisations.[2][32]
Yet for all its exalted promises as a lodestar of all enlightened societies, the proliferation
of democratic processes has precipitated a paradox insofar that it undermines its theoretical
foundations–the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minorities can be overridden by
majority rule, or the potential for populist leaders to undermine democratic institutions through
democratic means. The irony was intimated by the Renaissance philosopher Niccolo
Machiavelli, whose seminal work The Prince boldly contended how effectual leaders must
transcend conventional moral precepts when brutal necessity demands it, challenging traditional
notions of ethical leadership in democracies.[1] Machiavelli's philosophical descendants have
transposed this consequentialist framework into the modern democratic arena, conceiving
scenarios of Democratic Dirty Hands, where good ends require immoral means of ‘coherent
moral scenarios’.[1][2]
However, with reference to judicious examinations, I reveal that facing many democratic
systems is not, as some argue, the result of an excess of democracy, but rather stems from a
critical deficit in genuine democratic participation and representation. The misconceptions about
voter behaviour, the erosion of institutional safeguards, and the outsized influence of private
interests over public policy all point not to the fulfilment of democratic ideals, but to their
antithesis – more accurately characterised as symptoms of 'too little democracy' and the failure to
fully actualise the true vision of democratic governance.[3]
I) The Illusion of Pure Democracy, Realities and Challenges in Modern Governance
The central premise that modern democracies suffer from an overabundance of
democratic principles within the context of what is termed ‘hyperdemocracy', is fundamentally
misguided. The concept of "pure democracy" as an actualised system of governance faces
numerous challenges, including the practical difficulties of direct participation in large
populations, the potential for majority tyranny, and the barriers of modern governance requiring
specialised knowledge.[4] Democratic societies have invariably operated along a continuum of
institutional arrangements and participatory mechanisms, with varying degrees of citizen
involvement and representational structures. This spectrum of democratic systems ranges from
representative models with limited direct citizen participation to more participatory frameworks.
Representative models, like the U.S. federal system, feature elected officials making decisions on
behalf of constituents, and often have checks and balances to prevent power concentration but
can suffer from issues of accountability and responsiveness. Participatory models, exemplified
by Switzerland's semi-direct democracy, involve citizens more directly through frequent
referendums and local decision-making processes. While offering greater citizen engagement,
these systems can face challenges of voter fatigue and the complexity of issues put to the public
vote.[5][6] The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index further illustrates this spectrum,
categorizing nations into "full democracies," "flawed democracies," "hybrid regimes," and
"authoritarian regimes" based on criteria such as electoral processes, civil liberties, and political
participation.[6][7]
Yet, only a few nations, even the most idealised examples, have truly achieved a full
manifestation of unbridled democratic expressions across all facets of democratic governance
and civil society. The Democracy Index of 2022 provides a quantitative assessment of the global
state of democracy. During 2022, the index classified only 24 countries as "full democracies”,
representing just 8% of the world's population which highlights the rarity of robust democratic
systems and the challenges in maintaining them. Moreover, it revealed a trend of democratic
regression, with the global average score declining from 5.37 in 2020 to 5.28 in 2022, indicating
a general erosion of democratic institutions and practices worldwide.[7]
II) Autocrisation and Electoral Manipulation
The inherent complexities of translating democratic ideals into functional governance
structures have resulted in persistent imperfections, inequalities, and incomplete democratisation
across all systems.[8] Even the U.S. has experienced a gradual ‘democratic erosion’ and
backsliding over time, stemming from the very mechanisms designed to ensure fair
representation and equal participation, that has been increasingly manipulated to serve partisan
interests, hence distortion of the popular will. The integrity of electoral processes, a cornerstone
of democratic legitimacy, has also come under increasing strain. Between 2010 and 2022, at least
25 states enacted laws that make it more challenging for citizens to cast their ballots, ranging
from stricter identification requirements to reductions in early voting periods.[9] The aggregative
outcome of these changes is a subtle yet pervasive form of disenfranchisement that
disproportionately affects marginalised communities, distorting the composition of the
electorate.[10] Concurrently, the practice of partisan redistricting has reached unprecedented levels
of sophistication; In the 2012 congressional elections, the efficiency gap—a measure of partisan
advantage in district drawing—exceeded 7% in seven states, termed as gerrymandering.[11] This
strategic manipulation of electoral boundaries effectively predetermines outcomes in many
contests; By extension, the competitive nature of elections diminishes the accountability of
elected officials to their constituents. As a crucial element of civic engagement in democratic
institutions, public trust has shown alarming signs of erosion. The public trust in the federal
government has declined from 73% in 1958 to a mere 20% in 2022 where such a precipitous
drop in confidence, correlates with increasing perceptions of governmental unresponsiveness to
public needs and desires.[8][11]
Yet, the cumulative impact of these trends is reflected in patterns of voter
participation.[12][13[14] While the 2020 presidential election saw record turnout, with 66.8% of
eligible voters casting ballots, this figure still lags behind many other established democracies.
Moreover, turnout in midterm elections and local contests remains significantly lower, often
falling below 50% of eligible voters. This inconsistent engagement undermines the
representativeness of elected bodies and the legitimacy of policy outcomes.[12] The erosion of
democratic norms extends beyond electoral processes to the functioning of governing
institutions. The Democracy Index of 2016 downgraded the U.S. from a "full democracy" to a
"flawed democracy", a classification retained in subsequent years, reflecting the concerns about
the effectiveness of governmental checks and balances, the independence of the judiciary, and
the overall quality of governance.[15][16]
III) Machiavellian Realpolitik and Its Modern Democratic Application
Yet, the notion of democratic erosion as a manifestation of hyperdemocracy finds a
provocative counterpoint in the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli, particularly as
expounded in his seminal work "The Prince".[1][17]This Machiavellian perspective offers a lens
through which to examine the challenges facing modern democracies, albeit one that ultimately
reinforces the argument that the core issue is not an insufficiency of democracy, but its
overflow.[17]
Machiavelli's advocacy for political amorality, encapsulated in his concept of virtù,
suggests that effective governance may sometimes require leaders to transcend ethical constraints
in pursuit of state stability and security.[17] This philosophy is exemplified in his assertion that "it
is far safer to be feared than loved," a maxim that prioritises the exercise of power over moral
considerations.[1][18] In the context of modern democracies, this Machiavellian principle finds
expression in the concept of "democratic dirty hands," which posits that even democratically
elected leaders may face scenarios where moral transgressions become necessary for the greater
good.[2] The defiance of congressional oversight and challenges to whistleblower protections
during the Trump administration can be viewed through a Machiavellian lens, where such
actions effectively concentrate power in the hands of the executive branch at the expense of
democratic checks and balances.[6][18][21] Such manoeuvres align with Machiavelli's advice on the
consolidation of power, yet they simultaneously erode the institutional foundations of democratic
governance.[1][20][21]
Machiavelli's insights into the nature of political power and popular opinion also offer a
critical perspective on the dynamics of modern democratic systems. His observation in The
Prince, states: "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to
everybody to see you, too few to come in touch with you" speaks to the potential pitfalls of a
political system heavily reliant on public opinion.[1][17] Accordingly, the phenomenon mentioned
previously is defined as Trumpism and provides a stark illustration of how Machiavellian
principles can be leveraged in a modern democratic context. Trump's political approach,
characterised by a brash, unapologetic style and an emphasis on appearance over substance,
resonates with a segment of the electorate that felt alienated by traditional political
discourse.[2][21][22]This aligns with Machiavelli's advice that a leader should appear strong and
decisive, even if the reality is more complex. The "us vs. them" rhetoric employed by Trump,
pitting "the virtuous folk" against "the corrupt elite," mirrors Machiavelli's observations on the
importance of managing factions within a state.[21][23]
However, the contention to this Machiavellian perspective lies in a nuanced
understanding of voter behaviour and the nature of democratic participation.[27][28] While
Machiavelli posits a populace easily swayed by appearances, contemporary political science
offers a more complex view of voter rationality: Citizens, operating within constraints of limited
time and information, often employ sophisticated decision-making processes to navigate the
political landscape.[2][27][29] The use of heuristics — mental shortcuts based on party affiliation,
ideological cues, or trusted sources — allows voters to make reasoned choices without
comprehensive knowledge of every policy issue.[28][29][30]
Moreover, the concept of rational inattention in political engagement challenges the
notion that voter disengagement necessarily leads to a keen advantage of democratic overflow
for stakeholders. Rational inattention suggests that voters make calculated decisions about when
and how to engage in political processes based on perceived costs and benefits.[27][28] This
selective engagement does not inherently undermine democracy but rather reflects a pragmatic
approach to civic participation in complex societies. The emergence of interest groups and their
influence on policy-making, far from indicating an excess of democracy, points to the system's
adaptability in representing diverse interests. The asymmetry of concentrated benefits and diffuse
costs in policy-making creates opportunities for organised interests to advocate for specific
issues. While this dynamic presents challenges, it also serves as a mechanism representing
interests that might otherwise be overlooked in broad electoral processes.[2][24][28][30]
The cumulative states how Machiavellianism and its modern manifestations, far from
representing an excess of democracy, actually contribute to a severe deficit in genuine
democratic participation. As disclosed earlier, this is exemplified in the Machiavellian "virtù,"
which encourages leaders to adapt to circumstances and act in whatever manner necessary to
maintain power.[2][24] This approach concentrates power in the hands of leaders who disregard
moral and democratic norms, where tactics of fear and manipulation lead to citizen
disillusionment. The disengagement of citizens from the political process creates a vacuum that
allows for further consolidation of power by unscrupulous leaders. This cycle manifests a
hollowing out of democratic substance that leaves only a facade of popular legitimacy. The
phenomenon of Trumpism provides a contemporary example of this process.[21] While cloaking
itself in the rhetoric of popular sovereignty, Trump's practices contribute to a dangerous deficit of
genuine democratic participation by weakening institutions, polarizing society, undermining
truth, challenging the rule of law, and threatening electoral integrity.[2][21][24][31]
The lofty democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and accountable self-governance have
long served as a beacon - a revolutionary vision of the emancipated "people" as the pinnacle
sovereign. Yet this exalted promise stands in stark contrast to the reality increasingly toppled by
systemic democratic deficiencies –from populist movements to the erosion of institutional
norms– plaguing modern societies. The true crisis is one of deficiency, not democratic
overindulgence. Therefore, societies must not be misled into restraining democracy's principles,
but rather revitalising their complete or steadfast actulisation. Fortifying universal political
equality, accountable self-governance, and the unhindered sovereignty of the people is crucial to
democracy's enduring viability. Complacency in the face of its systemic erosion will only
precipitate a nation’s demise.
Works Cited
[1]Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. 1532. New York, Ams Press, 1967.
[2]de Wijze, Stephen. “The Problem of Democratic Dirty Hands: Citizen Complicity,
Responsibility, and Guilt.” The Monist, vol. 101, no. 2, 2018, pp. 129–49. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26408271. Accessed 28 June 2024.
[3] Volk, Kyle G. “The Perils of ‘Pure Democracy’: Minority Rights, Liquor Politics, and
Popular Sovereignty in Antebellum America.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 29, no. 4,
2009, pp. 641–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40541900. Accessed 28 June 2024.
[4] Heclo, Hugh. “Hyperdemocracy.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 23, no. 1, 1999, pp.
62–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40259849. Accessed 28 June 2024.
[5]Van Herpen, Marcel H. “Referendums and Popular Initiatives: Can One Have Too Much
Democracy?” The End of Populism: Twenty Proposals to Defend Liberal Democracy,
Manchester University Press, 2021, pp. 93–115. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1hk15ph.11. Accessed 28 June 2024.
[6] Luis Ricardo Fraga, et al. “American Democracy and Voter Suppression.” The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 708, no. 1, 1 July 2023, pp. 227–242,
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162241232825. Accessed 4 Apr. 2024.
[7] Economist Intelligence Unit. “Democracy Index 2022.” Economist Intelligence Unit, 2023,
www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/.
[8] Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy. Yale University Press, 2012. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bg23. Accessed 28 June 2024.
[9]“Examining Democratic Backsliding in the United States: Insights from Political Scientist
Milan Svolik | Institution for Social and Policy Studies.” Isps.yale.edu,
isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2023/11/examining-democratic-backsliding-in-the-united-states-insights
-from-political.
[10] Hajnal, Zoltan, et al. “Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes.”
The Journal of Politics, vol. 79, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 363–379,
pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/VoterIDLawsandtheSuppressionofMinorityVotes.pdf,
https://doi.org/10.1086/688343.
[11] THE NEGATIVE IMPACT of POLARIZATION on DEMOCRACY DEMOCR ACY A ND
HUMAN RIGHTS.
[12] “Democracy Reports – V-Dem.” V-Dem.net, V-Dem, 2022,
www.v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports/.
[13] V-Dem Institute. Democracy Report 2023: Defiance in the Face of Autocratization. 2023.
[14] Enos, Ryan D., et al. “Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the
Composition of the Electorate.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 76, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 273–288,
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613001308.
[15] EIU digital solutions. “Democracy Index 2016 - the Economist Intelligence Unit.” Eiu.com,
2016, www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016.
[16]“EIU Democracy Index | Indicator Profile | Prosperity Data360.”
Prosperitydata360.Worldbank.org,
prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/indicator/EIU+DI+INDEX.
[17] Mansfield, Harvey C. “Machiavelli’s Political Science.” The American Political Science
Review, vol. 75, no. 2, 1981, pp. 293–305,
www.jstor.org/stable/1961365?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1961365.
[18] Mansfield, Harvey. “Niccolo Machiavelli.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 29 Mar. 2024,
www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli.
[19] “Democracy & Governance | Iraq | U.S. Agency for International Development.”
Www.usaid.gov, 7 Dec. 2020, www.usaid.gov/iraq/democracy-governance.
[20] A MORE CONTESTED WORLD A. Mar. 2021.
[21] de la Torre, Carlos. “Trumpism and the Future of Democracy in America.” Clingendael
Spectator, vol. 2017, no. 3, 5 Sept. 2017,
www.clingendael.org/pub/2017/3/trumpism-and-democracy/.
[22 ]Ignatius, David. “Donald Trump Is the American Machiavelli.” The Washington Post, 11
Nov. 2016,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-the-american-machiavelli/2016/11/10/8ebfa
e16-a794-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html.
[23] Pfau, Julia. Us and Them: Populism in the United States Us and Them: Populism in the
United States.
[24]Abrahamyan, Sara. “A Critique of “the Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli.”
Www.academia.edu,
www.academia.edu/37743609/A_Critique_of_The_Prince_by_Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli?aut
o=download&email_work_card=download-paper. Accessed 24 June 2024.
[25] “Too Much Democracy?” City Journal, www.city-journal.org/article/too-much-democracy.
[26] Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. 2018.
[27]Ashworth, Scott, et al. “Learning about Voter Rationality.” American Journal of Political
Science, vol. 62, no. 1, 23 Oct. 2017, pp. 37–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12334. Accessed 19
Feb. 2019.
[28]Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Andrea Mattozzi. “VOTER RATIONALITY and DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT.” Critical Review, vol. 20, no. 3, Jan. 2008, pp. 313–326,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810802503475. Accessed 26 Nov. 2019.
[29] Popkin, Samuel L. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential
Campaigns. Edited by 2d edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, University of
Chicago Press, press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3636475.html.
[30] Sniderman, Paul M., et al. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991,
www.cambridge.org/core/books/reasoning-and-choice/ED570B0ABD22361CAE90654EE0CD9A
09. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.
[31]“The Bush Doctrine.” Carnegieendowment.org,
carnegieendowment.org/posts/2002/10/the-bush-doctrine?lang=en¢er=global. Accessed 28 June
2024.
[32]McClay, Wilfred M. “History for a Democracy.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 25, no.
4, 2001, pp. 99–106. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40260268. Accessed 28 June 2024.
