In some of his writings, Dr. Bowen asserted that democracy is unstable, at least in part, because elections are much too subjective and guided by the emotional system. He suggested that we could reach the point where we would need a monarch or benevolent dictator who could make thinking-based decisions and restore order and good functioning.
I spent 15 years living in Puerto Rico, an island territory of the United States with an exuberant democracy. There are two main parties, each representing about 47 percent of voters, and a third minority party that represents about 5 percent. Because party affiliation is quite fixed – a Popular Democrat would rarely if ever vote for a New Progressive candidate – minority party voters have a lot of control.
Elections occur with massive rallies, long parades of cars and colorful party flags. There is music and dancing. The island is proud of its democratic tradition, but the political and governmental life of the island are in gridlock. Puerto Rico is defaulting on debt that has accumulated over decades of poor fiscal management, led mainly by the need to ensure votes and party loyalty. Crime, poverty and unemployment are rampant. And the government cannot afford to provide basic services, such as schooling and public health. As U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans are choosing to flee the island for Florida, New York and other points on the United States mainland. The island’s shrinking population increasingly comprises the very old, the very young, the infirm and the unemployable.
Puerto Rico, a small island of about 3.5 million people with limited self rule, offers only a rough comparison with the United States. Yet perhaps it offers a crucible for the limits of democracy. Elections routinely draw 80% of the Puerto Rican electorate, but party affiliation is too fixed, politics is too polarized for thoughtful work to be done at the ballot box.
When I lived there from 1984 to 1999, I often heard people say, “What Puerto Rico needs is a dictator.” The first time I heard it, from an editor of one of the island’s biggest newspapers, I was shocked — more so because he was a North American, born and raised in the United States.
I am starting to understand how that sentiment arises. Dr. Bowen’s assertions about democracy have increasing resonance over the last three or four presidential election cycles in the United States — with populist candidates such as Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and even Bernie Sanders, and electoral waves such as the one that swept in George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and other right wing members of Congress, spawned the Tea Party and raised Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008. One can argue about the relative value of the candidates, but they way they have come into power are evidence of a democracy increasingly ruled by subjectivity and emotions. At the very least, it raises some important questions.
Indeed, can a democracy survive long term? Is direct democracy an unmitigated good? Can one participate in a campaign and an election responsibly? If so, what would responsible participation look like? For voters, what is responsible assessment of a candidate?
What is the role of the media – particularly social media — in creating the political environment we experience today? (A lot, I would argue.)
How should we define rights and responsibilities under a democracy? When everyone has rights, what are the responsibilities? What is a functional definition of equality in a democracy?
The writer Andrew Sullivan recently published a piece in New York Magazine under the headline, “Democracies end when they are too democratic. And right now the United States is a breeding ground for tyranny.”
Sullivan, who was excoriated in left-leaning media for this piece, reached back to Plato’s Republic to raise warnings about what can occur in democracies when rights are extended to everyone and “elites” come under attack.
He quoted James Madison as saying democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention … and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Sullivan writes, “… when all the barriers to equality, formal and informal, have been removed; when everyone is equal; when elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise.”
In that fractious environment, Plato predicts that the electorate will lean toward a strong man or tyrant. A man “not having control of himself [who] attempts to rule others”; a man flooded with fear and love and passion, while having little or no ability to restrain or moderate them; a “real slave to the greatest fawning,” a man who “throughout his entire life … is full of fear, overflowing with convulsions and pains.”
Sullivan concludes that American democracy has accomplished much. “But it is precisely because of the great accomplishments of our democracy that we should be vigilant about its specific, unique vulnerability: its susceptibility, in stressful times, to the appeal of a shameless demagogue.”
I wonder if Dr. Bowen would agree. In the end, can a democracy can stand up to the forces of the emotional system? And if this is what societal regression looks like, what if anything can Bowen theory do to help stop the regression?
The New England Seminar for Bowen Theory will hold its annual conference on societal process on Oct. 14, at Clark Unversity, where I hope some of these questions will be taken up.
Barbara,
This brings to mind Lincoln’s question about whether a nation so conceived (in liberty and equality) can long endure. Maybe there is a weakness inherent in democracy in that it emphasizes togetherness: “we the people” Your description of Puerto Rico does sound like a microcosm of what we have now in the U.S. Both countries fit Bowen description of regression. Bowen’s ideas on differentiation of self as the way out of regression offer so much to leaders and citizens as we look for a way out of the factions and gridlock. It would seem that democracy is a viable model if (the BIG IF) citizens are educated, engaged, and take responsibility for contributing to the common good. How close has American democracy ever come to that?
Great piece and very thought provoking. If a family is run on the principles of a pure democracy, the kids would have as much to say about the future as the parents, even though they had considerably less responsibility given age and stage of development. That would lead to chaos. Maybe it is not the type of government that we should focus on as all important. Level of differentiation seems to be the all important variable. I look forward to discussing this further.
Thanks Ann. I think it’s interesting to think about levels of differentiation and government and society. Maybe in the end, checks and balances are about protecting against lower levels of DoS.
I look forward to more of your thinking, Barbara. Hope to make it to your NE Seminar program in October. I don’t have anything to add to your thoughtful article or to Ann’s and Stephanie’s also very interesting responses. I appreciate the open-minded questions you raise that go against some strongly held beliefs (backed up by feelings) in myself and others! Well done. I think when we can ask the questions that are based in curiosity and may take some courage to ask openly, it is on the way to making a contribution. I wonder if these kinds of questions are in part what has drawn people to Bowen theory. I was imagining a time in the future when Bowen theory becomes understood and accepted by most people. Some of us might then want to turn to the next thing, the next challenge.
Barbara,
Constructively provocative. I hadn’t thought of most of these ideas. It makes for good conversation. My friend here who grew up in Canada says that the American system’s three branches are too loaded with checks and balances. It accomplishes something but it is not suited for getting anything done.
Where are those initial Bowen ideas from? I don’t remember having read it.
Thanks.
Interesting about Canada. It has had universal health care for many decades and generous pension and childcare programs, things could never survive the gauntlet of checks and balances in the current climate. I read Bowen’s ideas in a letter excerpt. Perhaps I overstated what he wrote. It was not in a professional paper or anything that he intended to publish at the time. And it was not a fully developed idea. But it really got me thinking about the nature of self-rule and even the nature of national sovereignty, which is relatively recent as a broad phenomenon. It made me think about history and recognize that you really can take nothing for granted – especially in the face of emotional process. A blinding flash of the obvious, I know, but something I forget.
Barbara, I heard Dr. Bowen say that in periods where the level of differentiation of self is higher, democracy is the best form of government and when in a regression, not. I like the idea you mentioned that the three branches of government were meant to guard against undifferentiation and reactive decision making. I wonder how much regression can be managed by our form of government and what it would look like to get through it without undoing basic principles that have served us well for couple of hundred years plus a few?
What a great question. I am watching a documentary about the 1960s. That was certainly a turbulent time. The 1930s. The post-revolutionary period when Jefferson and Adams were going at each other. It would be interesting to view the country’s history through a Bowen lens. Has anyone done that kind of work that you know of?