The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

At Large

(Page 2 of 2)

There's nothing unique about dictatorships masquerading as democracies. When elections were held in North Korea in 1962, the reigning Workers' Party won by a 100% vote. Even in its less menacing forms, this kind of nouveau riche democracy -- where everyone participates, as an act of national braggadocio ("Hey, look at us!"), and everyone agrees -- is the antithesis of democracy. Dictators know they have to feign popular support to maintain any sense of legitimacy. However, their mistake is in overachieving; they fail by succeeding too much. They think the greater the number of votes supporting them, the more conclusive the evidence of democracy and therefore of their legitimacy. But the truth is just the opposite.

Voter neglect is a sign of democratic health. Not caring about politics doesn't mean the system is broken; usually, it indicates things are just fine.

A key ingredient in democracy is imperfection. Real existing democracies don't (and can't) produce the sort of unanimity that dictatorships can achieve through force and intimidation. As a result, huge victories can dispel a ruler's legitimacy more than a narrow defeat ever could. The only thing worse than losing a rigged election is winning one.

Some advice for dictators: Try losing. It will do wonders for your image.

topics:
Vladimir Putin, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Russia, North Korea