Sometimes, we can hear cries that the democracy is getting worse. There is populism, extremism, and lobbying. But underneath lurks a bigger problem. People's interests are diverging. They have different ideas about what a government should do for us and offer various things in return.
Let's start with a little exercise: Design a better system than the traditional democracy, and it has a chance to be democratically chosen.
My solution is a democracy, but the most evil person cannot vote and be elected. It is the simplest better solution (the stupidest works too).
To see why we live in a democracy, let's look at the history.
In history, we see a plethora of governments. Usually, they made sense (I'm looking at you Democratic People's Republic of Korea).
In a tribal society, to get something, you needed to negotiate with the leader. Similar to democracy, but it does not scale.
In ancient Egypt, Pharaon and clergy directed everything while peasants had no rights. The reason was simple almost everyone maintained canal network that irrigated the Nile valley. Someone needed to do the menial work. It did not matter that he had no rights.
In classical Greece, the economy was different, more capitalistic. The agriculture did not need a canal network, so every hill was a separate system. Also, there was a large merchant and artisan class. People who had economic power had political power, so only rich men.
In medieval Europe the life in a city and village differed. Lords could use peasants however they wanted. People in cities self-governed themselves much more (in guilds, for instance).
There were a lot of people that could not vote, women. Until the 20th century, they were considered one with the husband and usually had no work outside the house.
A red thread connects everything in my selective history excursion. People got a political power when they already had their economic power. Everyone owning land or having a business in Athens was relatively free. Every knight with a land too.
The revolutions started and succeeded after it become reasonable to request some rights. Medieval peasants will do nothing else than peasanting, so they did not revolt. And if they did, they failed (their situation was improving, but it was because they were getting more important).
It's impossible to have people that control the economy and lack political power.
The technology amplifies differences between people. Welfare prevents people from pushing themselves.
Maybe I'm wrong, and everyone wants to work, and we will prize everyone's abilities similarly.
But if I'm not wrong, some people will produce almost nothing, and some will become super-workers. It creates a sizeable misalignment of interests among people.
One way how it might turn out is the redundancy of politics. The election would be theatre, politicians will decide behind the scenes, it is in line with post-democracy.
Better campaigns will decide elections. Money will buy votes, and the politics become too tangled for regular people. Actual politics will diverge from the theatre that surrounds it.
Controversially, we might solve misaligned interests by getting rid of "one man, one vote". Your contribution to society and your knowledge might influence the weight of your vote.
Your vote might be more influential if:
Your vote might be less influential if:
Right now, we are heading towards the muddy post-democracy where the crucial decisions are hidden. It might still be better than massive redistribution of wealth.
I would support the reasonable meritocracy system. The best thing would be customizing your laws. You want unemployment insurance? Pay and vote for it!
To conclude, with high differences in productivity, we might see an existential crisis of democracy. Not like communism or fascism, a non-democratic (in our sense) system might be more productive.