Max Tallberg
Throughout history, humanity has envisioned countless ideas for a better world, and democracy is among them. However, one could argue that none of these visions have worked in practice as well as their proponents originally imagined. In my view, the biggest reason for this is human nature. Ultimately, it is people who determine whether theoretical models function in reality. A particularly crucial factor in this regard is how leaders exercise power and attempt to influence ordinary citizens. That is why, in this text, I focus primarily on human nature to explore the challenges that democracy faces today.
Traditionally, democracy has been viewed through the lens of a populist ideal, emphasizing the role of ordinary citizens in shaping political decisions within democratic societies. However, this approach has been criticized as unrealistic in the modern world. Some argue that contemporary democratic theories face a significant challenge: they do not depict individuals realistically but instead present an idealized and romanticized view of human nature.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, democracy has also been described as primarily a mechanism for selecting those in power. For example, economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that democracy does not—and cannot—mean that the people hold real power in any practical sense. Rather, it simply means that the people have the ability to approve or reject those in power. This perspective may offer a more realistic model for understanding modern societies. Today, most democratic systems function as representative democracies, where citizens elect legislators who, in turn, govern the country. The main alternative to this model is direct democracy.
Human Nature and Its Influence on Democracy
When examining the problems of modern democracy through the lens of human nature, it is important to first acknowledge that people do not typically base their opinions on objective, independent information. There are numerous cognitive biases that significantly shape people’s opinions. For example, we often have prejudices against different groups. We tend to hold positive biases toward groups we belong to while identifying strongly with them. At the same time, we often harbor negative biases against groups we do not belong to and may even feel hostility toward them without any rational basis. Additionally, we are more likely to overlook the wrongdoings of our own group while condemning even minor transgressions by others. This suggests that loyalty to our group is often more important to us than a perspective based on objective truth.
One well-known cognitive bias is confirmation bias, which refers to our tendency to accept evidence that supports our preexisting beliefs while rejecting or ignoring information that contradicts them. For many people, defending their opinion is more important than seeking the truth. In fact, encountering opposing evidence often reinforces their original beliefs rather than changing them. This can be seen, for instance, in media consumption—people tend to read newspapers that align with their existing views.
Another cognitive bias, availability bias, occurs when people rely on readily available information when making judgments or decisions. This can lead to distorted perceptions. For example, if news reports highlight child abductions, people may assume they are more common than ever, even if statistical evidence shows they are actually decreasing. As a result, people may focus on the wrong issues when considering political matters.
Framing effects also play a role in how people interpret information. The way a particular issue is presented strongly influences how people perceive it. Additionally, strong emotions often cause individuals to disregard facts and adopt polarized, prejudiced views. Studies show that a person’s mood can influence the conclusions they draw.
Beyond these biases, people are also heavily influenced by what others think—especially authorities. Many individuals tend to believe what the majority believes or what their own group believes, even if this belief is irrational.
How People Approach Politics
Given this information, it becomes clear that people do not always approach politics or their political views objectively. Political philosopher Jason Brennan has identified three idealized types of citizens based on their political knowledge.
- The first group is uninterested in politics. These individuals tend to hold strong, rigid opinions on political issues but have little to no knowledge of social science theories, which are necessary for understanding and assessing political phenomena. They focus on their daily lives and generally ignore politics. According to Brennan, most non-voters belong to this group.
- The second group engages with politics emotionally. They have strong, often inflexible worldviews. They are capable of arguing for their own beliefs but struggle to explain opposing views in a way that their opponents would find satisfactory. These individuals consume political content but usually from a biased perspective, seeking out information that aligns with their views. They often exhibit overconfidence, and their political opinions are deeply tied to their identity. They tend to despise those who disagree with them. According to Brennan, this group makes up a significant portion of active voters and political activists.
- The third group approaches politics through a scientific and rational lens. Their opinions are grounded in social sciences and philosophy. They are self-aware and only believe in claims supported by scientific evidence. They can articulate opposing views in a way that satisfies those who hold them. These individuals are interested in politics but maintain a detached attitude to avoid bias. They do not assume that those who disagree with them are ignorant, evil, or selfish. However, no individual fits perfectly into one of these three categories, and all people exhibit some degree of bias in their views.
Social Identity and Political Behavior
Rather than viewing individuals as purely rational and objective actors, an alternative perspective sees people primarily as members of social groups, each tied to multiple layers of identity and group affiliations. Voting behavior can also be understood through this lens. Party preference, for example, plays a major role in shaping political opinions. For many, loyalty to a political party is more about group belonging than about specific policies or ideology. Instead of independently evaluating policies, people often let their party dictate what they should think about current issues.
This is particularly evident in the United States, where liberals overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and conservatives align with the Republican Party. However, party platforms often contain positions that contradict individual voters’ personal beliefs. Nonetheless, group loyalty remains the dominant factor in determining political preferences.
Sources
- Achen, C. H. & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.
- Brennan, J. (2017). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
