Competitive Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election

Democracy is having one hell of a year in 2016. Brexit has cast doubt on the European Union as the rosy future of European identity. Recession, economic slowdown and demographic changes, from immigration to refugees, have left current political systems reeling in response. Across the Western world, people have replied by boosting the popularity of far right and far left parties as well as ideas. From Golden Dawn in Greece to Podemos in Spain, groups from across the political spectrum have risen from the fringes to challenge contemporary thinking on government, economy, and social issues. In their wake, the current form of democracy has been rendered impotent and vulnerable to handle the “will of the people.” One could see this as a simple crisis of our time. Others like Austrian American Joseph A. Schumpeter, this is a symptom of a much larger problem in capitalist democracy which he seas as not representative but rather competitive. No more is this evident than in the 2016 race for president of the United States.

            US politics have always been the greatest spectator sport in American history. Ever since Andrew Jackson won the presidential election of 1828, Americans have elected their presidents through their candidates election campaigns. Through these campaigns, politicians became adept at morphing these campaigns into election cycles where competition outweighs the spirit of democracy. As in other liberal democratic governments, like Britain or France, these competitions give off the veer of a popular contest between two candidates selected by the citizens they have been serving as politicians. Though as Schumpeter notes, these candidates are in reality, chosen by their respective parties largely outside anything resembling a democratic process. Instead, we see that these processes do not represent the will of the people or even the majority of citizenry. In its place, political power is something already residing in within the state. Representatives of their respective party then compete for this power. This means that although the people choose them, these candidates truly represent their political party.

            This veer was in largely in place until the Trump campaign blew it off in its bid for the presidency. Trump accomplished this by reworking the usual loyalty to the party to loyalty to himself by almost completely throwing out traditional Republican Party doctrine. He has openly disregarded the Constitution with calls to deport all illegal immigrants and prevent Muslims from entering the United States even legally. He has not suffered setbacks despite open lies, past immoral behavior, or the general xenophobic flavor he gives to his campaign. He has instead found remarkable if not historic success in courting Republican voters.

            Trump’s legitimate shot at becoming president has exposed how fragile American democracy can be against economic anxiety and political gridlock. In many ways, Trump isn’t given the credit he deserves in exposing said flaws. He exploited, the fears and hardships of many average Americans despite, or likely because, of his complete lack of political experience. He confounds experts and analysts precisely because he does not play by the rules. If he wins, the future is so uncertain as to be maddening to attempt to predict. The only certainty is the figure he has created for others to model. Forcing Americans and indeed all Western democracies to consider whether their system of government are truly representative or just competitive.

Bibliography

Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Third ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1950. 269-83. Print.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/