Democracy is widely regarded as a humane and effective approach to governance. Among a cornucopia of political ideas, it is frequently acknowledged to be “the best available system of government” (Mork par. 10). While democracy is not inherently flawless, the risks of it morphing into other forms of authoritarian rule far outweigh its weaknesses. Therefore, safeguarding democracy and preventing its erosion is of utmost importance. Specifically, a strong democracy should avoid enacting resolutions that could jeopardize its own principles overall. Thus, an excess of democracy occurs when collective decisions lead to the ultimate demise of a democratic society.

Defining Democracy

Democracy can be interpreted in countless ways. To explore how democratic decisions may lead to its own discontinuation, it is crucial first to understand what exactly is considered “democratic.” In academic discourse, a modern democracy can be defined as “collective decision-making characterized by a form of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process” (Christiano and Bajaj par. 1). This definition underscores the belief that democracy is governance by the people that abides by “majority” rule.

From a legal perspective, John Locke described democracy as the authority of the majority, where the general populace collectively consents to the legislature that serves as the “supreme power” that governs them. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government illustrates how democracy involves a special agreement between the governing body and the people to establish rules for the entire society (ch. 8). In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln defines democracy as a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” (par. 3). The essence of this statement lies in the phrase “for the people,” where Lincoln envisions democracy as a system that effectively fulfills the needs of its citizens, a leadership that prioritizes the welfare of the people. 

Though there are myriad ways democracy can be understood, the core of democracy is almost always present in the foundation of different definitions: collective decision-making. By combining Lincoln’s perception of democracy and Locke’s legal reading, democracy will therefore be referred to as “a system of government that bases its social and legal operations on the majority's wishes with the ultimate goal of benefiting the masses.”

Democracy to Kill Democracy

Democracies are founded on the principle of the people. However, not all democratic commitments made by the masses will necessarily contribute to their own prosperity. Unbridled democracy applied in a society can lead to democratic backsliding, or a phenomenon where “a democratic country shows signs of becoming autocratic or authoritarian” (“Democratic Backsliding” par. 1).

When people within a democracy can no longer retain their abilities of self-judgment, their democratic institutions will often turn to into an autocracy. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche articulated his concerns about the dangers of “herd instinct” by describing how in a collective, an individual’s peers “ascribe value” and thus determine their own “moralities” (174-5).  While Nietzsche’s viewpoint is extreme, it still holds some degree of truth. People can be swayed by peer influence or their own strong emotions, which results in group verdicts that are irrational. When reckless decisions are not confined, severe consequences may follow, especially in socially tumultuous times.

The rise of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler is a stark example of how emotional vehemence and groupthink can steer a democracy toward disastrous outcomes. This does not imply that Nazi Germany was a democratic regime, rather, it illustrates how the ascent of Nazi Party was a consequence of unrestricted democracy. Hitler became chancellor through a truly democratic election (Michal par. 1). Germany’s embrace of Hitler was a product of the “populace [being] desperate for change”; a fervent need to escape from social and political volatility of that time resulted in a democratic choice that would cost millions of lives in the Holocaust (“Why did people vote for Hitler?” par. 17). Hitler and Nazi Germany’s success demonstrate how the decisions influenced by peer pressure, or emotional impulses can lead a democracy astray and pave the way for authoritarianism. This manifests the reality that when a democratic decision of a society is not a direct product of logical discernment, its democracy may incidentally invite brutal forms of government. This, however, does not denote that democracy is an inherently negative system, or that the Weimar Republic should in any way refrain from democracy—it  merely connotes how decisions influenced by various social elements, ultimately resulting in the end of democracy, should be aborted.

Democracy’s majority rule also risks falling into the trap of extremism when the public is ill-prepared. Although democracy may represent broader social needs, the common layperson may not be capable of analyzing complex global issues. Consequently, decisions by the masses may invite extremist governments. This was discussed as early as Ancient Greece in Plato’s Republic. He expressed reservations about democracy by critiquing its fundamental principle that all members of society, regardless of capability, experience, or social class, deserve equal opportunities to participate in governance. Plato described the democratic government as “full of variety and disorder” for their tendencies of “dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike” (Book VIII). Although it is flawed for Plato’s argument to insist that various people have varying degrees of worth and value as an individual, his arguments do reveal a side of too much democracy. In cases when the masses are not prepared to engage in political discretion, they may be turned into victims who will be exploited by others leading to unrestricted democracy, putting the survival of the entire democracy at stake to an extremist government. 

Benito Mussolini’s rise to power is an example of how a majority democratic decision can lead to fascism. In the 1929 Italian Election, the Fascist Party led by Mussolini “swept the national vote,” and secured “every parliamentary seat” (“In a Landslide” par. 1). Without the support of the vast population, the rise of fascism would have never been plausible. While the nation did not eagerly embrace the dictatorship and brutality that came with war and expansionism, they were taken advantage of through perfidious promises and continuous threats of potential disasters. Mussolini’s success “is a political movement that harnessed discontent,” demonstrating that in periods of chaos, democracy may transmute into blind populism (Blakemore par. 1). The case of Italy post-WWI exhibits how a collective is not always endowed with the rational capacity of deciding what is the optimal course for their society’s political development. Mussolini, and his fascist squad “used violence to kill, harm, and humiliate their enemies” portraying himself as an “omnipotent and indispensable leader,” misguiding the population into believing that he is a capable leader who will guide Italy out of a dark time (Frommer pars. 11-19). However, the result of his regime was a nation that was fatigued because of war. A society that is gullible to political deception and lacks good countermeasures may end democracy and instead venture into the depth of extremism.

In a perfect society, democracy like a lot of political approaches would thrive without limits. In such circumstances, there will never be “too much democracy.” However, democracies may succumb to their internal system of collaborative decision-making, as evident in the examples given. Too much democracy hence occurs when the participants of a society are provided the opportunity to outvote a democratic government. Returning to our definition of democracy, no democratic decisions that aim to overthrow the democracy should be passed to guarantee the well-being of “the people”, for important collective resolutions are in the determinations of legal regulations or social restrictions.

Are the Consequences of an Unrestricted Democracy Only Revealed within a Withering Democracy?

Some may argue, however, that the above circumstances are not solely attributable to unrestricted democracy, and that it is unfair to attribute all societal instabilities to potential faults in a single political system. To exaggerate democracy’s influence on the entire population is to overlook other underlying factors that shape the progression of a community. This perspective suggests that elements such as education, culture, and class distribution may have been a primary cause of imprudent decisions of a society. For instance, reconsidering the case of Nazi Germany, one may argue that democracy not restricted may have been a less prominent cause for the party’s uprising relative to other important components such as the economy. The Treaty of Versailles signed due to Germany’s loss in WWI resulted in astronomical reparations needed to be paid by Germany, thus instigating wrath and resentment (“Treaty of Versailles” pars. 2-4).

However, such vindications are a fundamental digression from the topic. Although it is not unjustified to debate that democracy is not the only cause that galvanized incorrect social choices, it is undeniable that democracy is the conduit in which those decisions are enacted. Hitler’s rise to power following a democratic process demonstrates how societal concerns themselves do not necessarily lead directly to momentous repercussions such as Mussolini’s fascism or Hitler’s Nazism, accentuating the idea that democracy is too much when it permits the emergence of dangerous regimes, thereby refuting the counterargument (“Hitler Comes to Power” pars. 1-5). 

Critics of this essay’s argument may also claim that protecting democracies from turning to autocratic regimes is not enough to ensure efficacious leadership, professing that democracies can be detrimental to the people even without becoming authoritarian. In Jason Brennan’s The Ethics of Voting, for instance, he concurs with the belief that most of society is incompetent for democratic political involvement and may wield power in an ignorant way (p. 161-5). One manifestation of this is the “tyranny of the majority”, where a democracy, even without the risk of transmuting to autocracy, may still perpetuate inequitable—a concept coined by political theorist Alexis Tocqueville in Democracy in America, describing democratic rule by the majority that persecutes and abuses minorities for traits such as race, culture or religion, galvanizing civil unrest. From this perspective, democracy itself will incite friction (ch. 15 part II). 

While this counterclaim is not without merit, it deviates from a modern interpretation of democracy. A democracy is not merely a government operated by the masses, but also an institution that establishes legal restrictions upon its populace. Although no democracy will truly be perfect, if a society stays a democracy, it will flexibly resolve issues over time by establishing and refining its social framework. Addressing Brennan’s and Tocqueville’s argument, conflicts are inherent in any political system and cannot be entirely eradicated. Democracy is a “system of conflict management” replacing “open confrontations” with “competition in electoral and legislative arenas” (Sisk par. 10). A democracy is equipped with the ability of constant self-improvement; thus, it is “too much” if and only if it’s deviousness may lead to the demise of democracy itself. 

Protecting the System

To conclude, a democracy must never transform into a dictatorship for any reason whatsoever. Any democratic decision that produces the initiative to reorganize itself into a dictatorial government should immediately be abandoned. Democracy, like all forms of government, will never be immaculate, however, it is constantly readjusting to the new tides of development. As a result, democracy becomes excessive when a group resolution hints towards the renunciation of this political idea, otherwise, it remains the preferred choice among alternatives.

Work Cited

Blakemore, Erin. “Benito Mussolini and the Rise of Fascism in Italy.” National Geographic, Oct. 2022, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/benito-mussolini-rise-of-fascism-in-italy. 

Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton UP, 2012.

Christiano, Tom and Sameer Bajaj. “Democracy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/democracy/.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. “Democracy in America - Volume I.” Project Gutenberg, Jan. 2006, www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_1/ DEMOCRACY Democracy in America.pdf.

“Democratic Backsliding: Definition and Measurement.” Political Inequality: A Blog Since 2010, 1 Oct. 2022, politicalinequality.org/2022/09/11/democratic-backsliding-definition-and-measurement.

Frommer, Fred. “How Mussolini Seized Power in Italy—And Turned It into a Fascist State.” History, 15 Sept. 2023, www.history.com/news/mussolini-italy-fascism.

“Hitler Comes to Power.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. Feb 23, 2022, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hitler-comes-to-power.

“How Did Adolf Hitler Happen?” The National WWII Museum, 22 June 2017, www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/how-did-adolf-hitler-happen.

“In a Landslide.” Lapham’s Quarterly, www.laphamsquarterly.org/democracy/charts-graphs/landslide.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Gettysburg Address.” The Owl Eyes Library. www.owleyes.org/text/gettysburg-address/read/text-of-lincolns-speech.

Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. E-book ed. Gutenberg, 2003, www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm.

Mork, Alexandra. “Why Democracy Is the Best We’ve Got.” Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 12 Mar. 2019, www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/article/why-democracy-is-the-best-weve-got.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. Vintage, 2010.

Plato. The Republic. E-book ed. Gutenberg, 1998, www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm.

Sisk, Timothy. “Democracy and Conflict Management.” Beyond Intractability, 12 Jan. 2024, beyondintractability.org/essay/democ_con_manag/#:~:text=Democracy is a system of conflict management because,negotiation within the rules of the democratic game. 

“Treaty of Versailles.” National Geographic, education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/treaty-versailles-ends-wwi.

“Why Did People Vote for Hitler?” History Skills, www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-10/why-did-people-vote-for-hitler. Accessed 7 May 2024.