The keys to sustaining a democracy rest on two critical foundations. First, the people responsible for managing the government must be empowered by the “consent of the governed.”
As codified in the Declaration of Independence, which birthed the future United States of America:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect (sic) their Safety and Happiness.
The founders understood that free and honest elections are critical to ensuring that the government’s “just powers” would come as a result of their operating with the “consent of the governed.”
Nevertheless, the founders also realized that, particularly in close elections, a situation could develop where somewhere close to 50% of the population would not agree to give their consent to the elected head of government. In such cases, how does a government function whose “consent of the governed” represents just a bare majority of the voters or even less?
It is at this point that the second foundation of democracy comes into play. That is, the party in power must not dismiss the voices of the minority, no matter how few those voices might be, and certainly not when those voices represent almost half the population.
We have such situations today both in the United States, where I was born and lived until age 44, and Israel, where I have lived for the last 41 years.
Israel and the United States: When democracy interacts with nations divided
Although my two countries are quite different culturally, they both suffer from similar political maladies. In Israel’s case, we have a prime minister who has been in office for 18 of the last 29 years (there are no term limits in Israeli politics), which, in and of itself, is a patently obvious threat to democracy.
In addition, we are a parliamentary democracy currently composed of 10 different political parties, forcing the governing majority to be based on a coalition of like-minded but not always cooperative partners.
Since the last elections in 2022, the coalition has been composed of right-wing parties who were duly elected and, therefore, rule by “consent of the governed.” Yet, as a group, they have disdain for the opposition and, therefore, fail the democracy test by being dismissive of the minority’s daily demonstrations, which represent the thinking of close to half the country.
Sadly, the United States seems to be facing the same challenges: a president who was elected with 49.8% of the vote while the opposition candidate got 48.3%. This is not the landslide victory that Republican media sources like to tout, but it was sufficient to provide him cover under the “consent of the governed” caveat as the legitimate winner of the election with the right and obligation to govern.
Nevertheless, as in Israel, the actions of the first two months of the new US administration have been openly dismissive of the concerns of the half of the population that did not vote for the current leadership. This, in spite of growing anti-government demonstrations across America coupled with strong pushback to government representatives at town hall meetings and the like, much of it from within the rank and file of the party in power.
All of this manifests itself in actions that are blatantly undemocratic. Here, in Israel, the recent firing of the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) – Israel’s “Secret Service” – and the dismissal of the government’s attorney-general for basically not falling into line with the prime minister’s policies when they are both supposed to be apolitical marks a serious breach in the protective wall of democracy.
In the US, the president’s suggestion that judges who rule against him should be impeached or denying large research universities hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development program funding in the guise of protecting their Jewish students from harassment are blatant steps on the road to autocracy.
Not to mention the access to the highest levels of government information granted to the richest man in the world with neither regard for the potential conflicts of interest this poses nor concern for the damage for which he could be responsible.
When did the opposition become the enemy?
So, how did we get to the place in politics where those with whom we disagree are seen as the enemy? From my research, in the US, the concept seems to have been first put forth by former speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich during the 1994 political campaign season.
The Washington Post, in an October 13, 1994, report, noted: “Describing for a group of two dozen lobbyists the Republican strategy for the midterm elections, Gingrich said last week that Clinton Democrats should be portrayed as ‘The enemy of normal Americans.’
“He went on to say that if the Republicans win control of the House, the party will use ‘subpoena power’ and create a select committee on corruption to investigate the Clinton administration.”
In Israel, politics has generally been built around the concept that the opposition is the enemy. However, in the past, politicians understood that, as a nation, we could not afford to be divided. As a result, often after a bitter political battle in the Knesset, the combatants would go to dinner together. So, the word “enemy” here is a bit more modulated than it is in the US.
Of course, once the opposition or the political minority is seen as an “enemy,” it becomes easier to see how the language begins to deteriorate and feeds the appetite of any leader who hungers to be an autocrat.
Former US president Franklin Roosevelt warned of the perils of government power when he said in 1936, almost three years since he was elected: “They realize that in thirty-four months, we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government, this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.”
These are wise words worth remembering in these challenging times for the world order. The question for the opposition then becomes, do they have enough motivation and backbone to face off against the party in power and effect a change in direction?
Consent of the governed comes at the ballot box, but effective governance depends on the support of ALL the people. Democracy will hold only if the opposition can be successful in this effort.
The writer is the founder and chair of Atid EDI Ltd., an international business development consultancy. He is also the founder and chair of the American State Offices Association, a former National President of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, and a past Chairperson of the Board of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies.