Does Democracy Work for Public Management?

Democracy works, but not as we were told

Is democracy incapable of long-term thinking? This question has resurfaced trinc former minister Óscar Puente's comments on resource finiteness. The uncomfortable answer: the system isn't broken; it is designed exactly for what it does. Whether we like that outcome is another matter.

The source of this discontent is clear. Those in power look to the next elections, not the next decades, because their position depends on next month's polls. From there to concluding that public money buys votes is a leap many take without hesitation: the unchallenged Basque quota, transfers used as bargaining chips in investitures, and social spending turned into vote-grabbing tools. This criticism spans all political parties.

---

The counterargument undermining critics: prosperous nations are democracies

Against disillusionment, empirical evidence. Countries with the highest quality of life, measured by the UN Human Development Index, are democracies. Not necessarily the most militarily powerful or those with the richest elites, but where people live better. The correlation isn't perfect, but it exists, and deniers must explain why authoritarian systems don't improve it.

Objections arise quickly: the country rising fastest in this index recently isn't a liberal democracy, and Spain industrialized under Franco without elections. Critics argue development stems from technology and capital, not democracy. Yet China, also communist in its own way, remains an emerging power.

A third, more awkward point concerns actual democratic quality. Switzerland is often cited as the model for continuous voting on specific issues, whereas here decisions rely on representation and party discipline. How many decisions affecting us have ever been put to a direct referendum?

Universal suffrage under scrutiny

The most common critique targets democracy's scope, not its essence. In classical Athens, only about 25% voted; women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded. Some argue this restriction made it work. Modern proposals vary in detail but share the core idea: fewer, more qualified voters should decide, based on criteria like military service, contribution years, or age limits.

The flaw in this logic is that someone always draws the line between capable and ignorant voters, and that person never includes themselves among the ignorant. The history of census-based suffrage is one of elites convinced the masses weren't ready, while keeping them out of decision-making.

---

Partyocracy as an alternative diagnosis

A growing thesis doesn't deny democracy but redefines it: we live in a partyocracy where parties prioritize self-perpetuation. Electoral systems, funding, voting discipline, and territorial power distribution create an ecosystem where alternation is cosmetic. Real power, proponents say, lies not in Congress but in chambers of commerce, financial lobbies, and embassies representing banks and multinationals.

From this view, dictatorship isn't democracy's opposite but its unmasked version: the same power via different routes, but without transparency regarding embezzlement or corruption. This comparison seems excessive, yet holds a grain of truth: democratic controls, however imperfect, exist.

The undeniable argument: material living standards

Amid the noise, one fact disarms: life has never been this good for so many. Housing, food, and healthcare surpassing 99% of historical humans. Previously, there was no time for dissatisfaction; people worked dawn to dusk or died of curable diseases. Democracy, despite its vices, coincided with humanity's greatest material well-being leap.

The lingering question isn't whether democracy works, but if voters accept their responsibilities as bosses. The system fails not just from above, but when leaders delegate to those promising sweets.

Ultimately, the honest conclusion is unpopular: democracy isn't for choosing the best, but for removing the worst without bloodshed. That doesn't make a twenty-year plan, but it prevents something worse.