Questioning the Soundness of

the One-Person, One Vote Principle in Western-Style

Democracies
The West needs to take an honest and hard look at its obsolete democratic
system and fundamentally redesign it.
In the past, I have refrained to publicly question the soundness of the
electoral process in Western-style democracies. This was because I felt it
would be futile to challenge the deep-rooted belief that, despite its
shortcomings, this system is the best that mankind can aspire to in the
present. Arguing that the electoral system is fundamentally flawed would
either be ignored or treated with disdain by Western-minded individuals. One
instance when I experienced such a treatment was after the recent
publication of one of my articles in The Diplomat: Chinese Capillary
Democracy: What Can Western Democracies Lear from It? In it, I argued that
Western democracies could be improved by changing how political leaders
are elected and introducing a more professional, meritocratic, and stable
government system, in some ways similar to the Chinese one. My article
received numerous sarcastic comments: Mr. Meyer has sold his soul to the
CCP on Alibaba; This is such a crap article. The PRC is a mafia state; and
what a naive, narrow-minded, simplistic and ignorant piece of
propaganda Attempting to argue with Western-style democracy diehards
about the validity of their system was vain.
Now, with arrival on the global stage of figures such as Donald Trump and
The Punisher Duterte, and a pathetic U.S. presidential campaign, some of
the supporters of Western democracy might be shocked by what their
beloved democratic system can produce. And more importantly, they might
start questioning its soundness. Hopefully, this questioning will crack their
rock-solid belief and allow criticism to flow into their analysis.
It is seriously questionable to argue that an individual can be sufficiently
informed about major domestic and international issues, and have the
necessary background to understand and assess them sufficiently to make
educated choices. The assessment of the issues that are at stake when
deciding who are the most capable leaders of our nations such as how to
manage globalization or global warming in a constructive manner, how to
deal with China and Russia, or whether to go or not to war with Iran are far
beyond the analytical reach of any single individual, including those with
expertise in relevant fields.
Yes, people are all more or less well educated and information is easily
available. However, no matter how extensive a persons knowledge and skills
are, they will always just be a tiny fraction of what is necessary to evaluate
complex domestic and international issues. Believing that we are brilliant

enough to make individual decisions on extremely complex issues based on

extremely limited information and skills is simply an illusion.
Using the one person, one vote principle to elect the leadership of a
country is fundamentally flawed. That individuals are incapable to sufficiently
understanding complex domestic and international issues is illustrated by the
fact that even those with extensive relevant expertise are not prepared to
individually make a final decisions about them. Individual experts constantly
disagree and contradict each other, and draw conclusions that are
diametrically opposed. Hence, the individual vote for candidates based their
approach to domestic and international issues, is not only an ignorant vote,
but can also be a dangerous one.
I dont argue that people should not participate in a countrys political life. On
the contrary, they should, but on a level that an individual can make
educated, intuitive, critical decisions. For instance, individuals can sufficiently
assess issues affecting their local communities and make educated choices in
grassroots elections of their local representatives. These representatives
elected by popular vote would become part of the foundations of the national
governing structure. A structure that would be predominately consist of
teams of professionals who aspire to a long-term service in the government.
Promotions within this governing would be based on a combination
performance (meritocracy) and internal elections. Ultimately, governing a
country should be a long-term professional duty, not a temporal personal
ambition.
Arguing that a numerical majority of fundamentally unqualified individuals is
capacitated to elect in any meaningful way the most adequate candidates to
deal with multidimensional, complex domestic and international matters is a
delusion. The West needs to take an honest and hard look at its obsolete
democratic system and fundamentally redesign it to make it effective in
overcoming the challenges posed by the complex world we live in.
Patrik K. Meyer, a Visiting Professor at Muhammadiyah University Yogyakarta,
Indonesia and a New America Security Fellow.