An Autocratic Democracy - An Alternate Form of Governance

Note: This was written as a perspective paper, arguing for a form of government that wasn’t a democratic republic. This article does not accurately represent my views.

A wise man once said that:

“In an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way” (Green).

Bearing this quote in mind, one must still recognize that sometimes, the nuances of the many can complicate the fundamentals of government. When we have multiple blocs leading a government, we tend to see a lot of disagreement. Now, one cannot simply dismiss this as the nature of government itself, as if it is, society must have always been polarized. Looking to the history books, this claim can be easily dismissed. But, this begs the question: how do we make sure that democratic values are upheld, without creating extreme, and unnecessary turmoil?

Let’s take the modern-day United States as an example to explain how this “pseudo- democracy” creates unnecessary opposition, and disagreement amongst our society. For instance, take a look at the Supreme Court. First of all, the Supreme Court is not directly elected by the people. Why not replace nine, indirectly elected, partisan justices, with one, directly elected, fair, and impartial judge? When a leader(s) of any branch of the government incorporates their personal biases, this creates public discontent with the leaders, or in this case, the justices (Blazina and Gramlich).

Furthermore, why do we need five hundred and thirty five representatives to vote for our own beliefs? The entire idea of a Congress is quite anti-democratic. Why do we need a useless middle man, to determine our vote? Why do these people need to become multimillionaires from representing the people? Just recently we saw seventy seven members of Congress violate a law designed to prevent insider trading (Levinthal).

Again, I ask the question, why do we need this unnecessary middle man, who ends up benefitting himself immensely? Now, this is not to undermine all the great thing that Congress has done. Personally, I believe that we don’t need 535 multi-millionaires making decisions, that affect all of us, with their own biases. And remember, after a Congressman is elected to office, they don’t have to pass legislature that agrees with the majority of people in their district. Once elected, they are, technically, allowed to do whatever they want. This could be done unintentionally, as without conducting elections, it would be quite nearly impossible to determine what the people want in a district. Because of this, the people are tasked with the impossible. They must predict if a Congressman will vote in alignment with their personal beliefs. And for the common citizen, or as Socrates says “the uneducated man”, this is not a simple task.

So, after taking all of this into consideration, why not have a democratically elected autocrat? Although this oxymoronic solution may seem quite asinine, I believe that this system, would be more democratic than our current system in the USA. To explain why this democratic autocracy is the epitome of all governments, let’s try to understand what exactly a democratic autocracy is.

In the democratic autocracy, the power balance is divided 50-50, with the people and the autocrat. Ultimately, this autocrat can only act on the decision of the people. In this system, the autocrat is simply the executor. This autocrat is elected by the people, and can only hold office for a shorter, more limited period of time ensuring that the opposition has fair chance. Instead of the über-competitive party system, we can create an individual based system, that prioritizes the just, and non-partisan. Not the democrat, or the republican. I’d like to point out that this isn’t an argument for a government run on extreme majoritarianism. This system of government can still be compatible with a republic built on inalienable rights.

To conclude, this system is built on the general principle that an autocrat executes the decisions of the people. This autocrat has shorter, and more limited terms, which can appease the opposition, as they have the opportunity to rise to power in the next election. In this system, we eradicate the agents of unnecessary polarization, such as a Supreme Court, or a Congress. We reward non-partisan leaders, and punish the partisan ones. We don’t act based on our advertised personal biases, rather one acts on what is the best for their country, even if that contradicts their most personal beliefs. The autocratic democracy creates a simple, uncomplicated system, that truly endorses democracy.