[Column] Flaws in the U.S. democratic process

The last presidential election in the U.S. has been one of great disappointment for all who believed in the U.S. democracy and the democratic process as serving an example to the world. Around the world, the democratic systems can be categorized into three types, the system of governance by a single party, the indirect democratic system, and the direct democratic system. Regardless of the type adopted, if it limits or ignores the right to vote and elect by the citizenry, it cannot be considered democratic. The last election in the U.S. reveals two flaws under this principle.

First, the U.S. has adopted a dual indirect democratic process. The people do not directly elect the next President but the actual selection is made by the college of electorates. The electorates are chosen by the states and are required to vote for the candidate selected by the majority of the states` citizenry. As such, a candidate who receives the overall majority of the U.S. citizens could lose the election. In addition, as the electorates do wield the power to vote against the selection made by the majority of the state citizenry, the selection by the electorates could be made against the wish of the people as a whole.

Furthermore, should the votes by the electorates fail to produce a majority, the right to select is given to the House of Representatives, yet another possibility of election not reflecting the wish of the people.

The greater flaw of such dual election process lies in the fact that such process is deeply rooted in the elitist principle which contradicts democratic ideals. When the U.S. forefathers were writing the Constitution, they adopted such a process as they felt a danger in leaving such selection of the leader of the nation in the hands of the people who they deemed ignorant.

To make matters worse, the United States is a collection of states and the election process takes place at the state level. Accordingly, the election process has become evermore complicated with the adoption of uniform voting, and counting process difficult to adopt. While an adoption of the direct election process could alleviate much of the problem, the U.S. has held strongly to the legacy of the forefathers.

Having witnessed the complication in the election process of the U.S., it has afforded other democratic nations as well as the U.S. itself, to reconsider certain processes. First, it appears as though the democratic process of the U.S. is still in development flux. Being the leader of the democratization process, the U.S. needs to reform its system of governance to provide an example in this age of the cold war thaw, globalization and democratization. As the cold war thaws around the globe, the U.S. cannot hope to maintain its leadership through military might, but must adopt leadership based on non-militaristic strength, such as cultural influence. Such cultural influence is not limited to popular culture but also includes democratic ideals and ethics. Should the U.S. insist on having a flawless democratic system while criticizing others, who would place much trust in the U.S.?

The democratic nations should also strive for the greater development of a democratic system through analysis and examination. The nation fully practices the doctrine of democratic sovereignty and how the rights of the individuals could be protected. In order to embody fully the doctrine of democratic sovereignty, it would be important to place at the hand of each individual, the equal rights to governance, and the absolute guarantee of one effective vote in the election process.

A democratic system which does not guarantee such process cannot be considered true democracy.

Park Sang-Shik, former director of Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security