According to the author, the first permanent ambassador of the USA to the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN), the greatest danger of democracy lies not only in the destruction of law and the rule of law, but also in the deliberate suppression by autocrats of the competition between ideas necessary for solving the most important problems of our society...

Today, there is much talk about a threat to democracy in our country and around the world. Most of these debates focused on the actions of autocrats and their supporters aimed at undermining the rule of law and voting rights; adopting policies that discriminate against women; using false information to mislead their supporters and discredit their opponents. All of these and other issues related to rights, justice, and inclusivity are crucial for ensuring a peaceful, prosperous, and united society. However, those who attack democracy pose an even greater threat. They undermine the competition between ideas needed to solve the world's most important problems.

The methods used to weaken democracy are largely based on controlling information known to the public. The campaigns of autocrats and their supporters in lies and disinformation, their attacks on the press, their attempts to stop the free movement of ideas using legislation, and their refusal to allocate funds to study issues that align with public interests - all this implies that they know what to do without consulting others. Some, for example, claim that Trump even acknowledges so much and that only he can solve our problems. Common sense shows that this cannot be true - only ideas that have passed through rigorous discussion and reflection can provide us with the necessary solutions in the current turbulent times. To counter the autocratic control of information necessary to solve our problems, we must redefine democracy as a system based not only on rights, justice, and inclusivity but also on competition of ideas.

The founders understood this truth well. As Thomas Jefferson noted, "if we give others the opportunity to point out their mistakes, we shouldn't be afraid of views that undermine faith." The importance of ideas in preserving the republic was one of the reasons for the amendments to the Constitution and, most importantly, led to the inclusion of the First Amendment. His role in supporting ideological competition was clearly articulated by the Supreme Court. Abrams is against. In the case of the United States, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "We must connect our salvation with a prediction based on incomplete knowledge. Since this experience is part of our system, we must always be vigilant against attempts to limit the expression of thoughts." The term "idea market" was originally used by Judge William Douglas in the US v. Appeared in an additional thought in Rumeli's work. However, the Supreme Court in its 1969 Brandenburg v. Brandenburg case, Ohio, transformed the marketplace of ideas into a political foundation on which the court interpreted the First Amendment. This ultimately led to Citizens United v. This led to a FEC decision that limited the government's ability to regulate corporate speech. All these decisions were based on the notion that democracy depends on competition between ideas. But despite the fact that the world needs better ideas to solve many of its problems, leaders are increasingly using disinformation, outright lies, cultural bias, and even violence to disrupt the free discussion that democracy provides. Most alarmingly, people are increasingly tolerating these and other autocratic methods. Many politicians are moving towards suppressing science and ideas that emerge as a result of research and discussions, and instead promoting ideas that serve to preserve ideology, religion, economic interests, and power. Leaders around the world follow the same path. The consequence of this will be the use of ideas that the Founders and the Supreme Court believe have not been tested in the market to save the Republic.

Why is this happening? One answer that is sometimes given is that social, economic, technological, and environmental changes are accelerating. This requires faster decision-making than those that can be made by democratic states if several options are thoroughly discussed through a multi-stage process involving legislative bodies and courts. This has prompted some people, especially those experiencing difficulties or fears, to adopt political approaches that are inherently undemocratic. Their attitude, especially due to their desire to change, is understandable. They want to change and get it as soon as possible from the one who can give it. This is one of the reasons why millions of Americans who voted for the "changes" proposed by Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for the "changes" promised by Trump in 2016 and 2024.

As for Trump and other autocrats, the resulting change is the pursuit of "instantaneous democracy," promising quick results free from disputes and criticism. But instant democracy is expensive. The public's desire for speed allows autocrats to postpone and even destroy consultations, research, and fact-based processes that fall within the competence of legislative bodies and courts. They view legislative bodies and courts as factors slowing down the actions they desire. Even in our country, Republicans are openly talking about ignoring court decisions. In fact, they did so. Some even argue that federal courts that "suspend Trump's agenda" should not be funded or deprived of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.

Autocratic efforts to push back multi-level processes of separation of powers, which are a distinctive feature of consultative, fact-based decisions, are supported by many members of the public. For example, when the US Congress performs its duties, this negatively affects its acceptability rating, as the discussion, which is its main feature, is viewed as a party dispute. Similarly, the authority of courts is lower than ever before, neither in our country nor in the world. This forced some legislative bodies and courts to abandon their historical duties and submit to autocratic leaders and their plans.

Using the population's impatience to make informed decisions, as well as historical biases and complaints, autocrats replace their opinion with the opinions of scientists, doctors, healthcare workers, diplomats, security specialists, economists, lawyers, legislators, and others. They characterize their opponents as traitors to national interests. At the same time, they use poisonous language, reminiscent of the most cruel times in recent world history. For example, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin used expressions like "human garbage," "worms," and "poisoning our blood" to describe their opponents. Unfortunately, the support of autocrats is gaining momentum. According to a recent survey, more than half of Britons aged 13-27 and 40% aged 45-65 believe that Great Britain is better with a strong leader, not limited by parliament and elections. Similarly, seventy-four percent of US Republicans recently said they approved of Trump becoming a "dictator for one day" - as if they weren't worried about what would happen the next day.

This is pure and simple populism. Professor Ming-Sung Kuo of the Law School at the University of Warwick emphasized that populism is a child of "the momentary disease of democracy." It takes root when people want to act quickly, detached from discussions that require democracy. The consequence of this is the suspension of discussions necessary for solving problems.

If any of these sounds familiar, it's not just about what's happening in our country and around the world now. Because in history, there have been many instances where populism prevailed over truth and conscious decision-making. Hitler developed a method of using lies and propaganda to achieve dominance through personal decree, concealing and supporting his actions. Stalin did the same. One of his most destructive actions was imprisoning Nikolay Vavilov, one of the world's leading agricultural geneticists. Because his views on hybridization were believed to support the idea of social Darwinism, which was considered the foundation of capitalism, not communism. As a result, about 5 million Russians died of starvation. Recently, Republicans have been endangering public health by groundlessly attacking science and nominating and approving cabinet members whose personal views contradict science. They also openly undermine democracy by denying millions of Americans the right to vote. And they ignore court decisions aimed at restricting their actions.

The inability of autocrats to solve complex problems based on unstudied personal opinions not based on information should be based on common sense. We all know what happens when leaders act without knowing the facts, because we've seen what happens when we do it. This event will be remembered again with tragic consequences for millions of Americans and others around the world. So, how can we ensure that the proposed solutions to our common problems are the result of conscious discussions and multi-stage decision-making that ensures democracy? Here are five ideas.

First, we can focus our thinking on the threat to democracy on the damage that can be caused if we do not allow competition of ideas. The risk of failure is obvious if we do not use the best data we have and can obtain to respond to complex problems such as climate change, human migration, pandemic protection, preparation and response, and the transition to an artificial intelligence society that threatens the employment of tens of millions of people.

Secondly, we need an organization funded by the state, but independent, focused on public interests, designed to analyze proposed draft laws in real time. Giving the public an idea of what leaders and legislators are proposing and what consequences their proposed laws will lead to allows voters to exert pressure on their representatives. This creates a basis for representatives to oppose the calls of their party and act more informedly, deeply thoughtfully, and bilaterally. The Congressional Research Service provides such analysis, but as we sink into autocracy, we need a specific independent organization.

Thirdly, we need to identify the conflict of interests between autocrats and their supporters in carrying out their actions. For this, we need a well-known, well-funded organization consisting of investigators and investigative journalists who study the behavior of autocrats and their supporters, receiving information from public representatives who don't know where to turn with their data. This organization must publish the results in its journal. Information hotlines allow the public to anonymously participate in tracking and exposing the corruption and personal interests of authoritarian rulers and their assistants. В-четвертых, нам нужны хорошо финансируемые юридические фирмы по защите общественных интересов для исследования действий, защищающих общественные интересы, и для ведения судебных дел. Мы рады, что существуют такие организации, как "Движение защитников демократии," но нам нужно больше организаций, особенно действующих на уровне штатов. Необходимо рассмотреть вопрос о привлечении опытных адвокатов, вышедших на пенсию и желающих помочь. Целей будет три: отложить начало автократического движения до тех пор, пока политические изменения не устранят угрозу; выявить незаконность движения; и информировать общественность и следственные органы, которые служат общественным интересам, о том, что происходит. Судебные решения, противоречащие автократической повестке дня, могут быть опубликованы в вышеупомянутом журнале расследований.

В-пятых, мы должны инвестировать в "третьи места," где люди с разными убеждениями и политическими взглядами могут собираться и слушать друг друга. Это, среди прочего, может раскрыть негативное влияние неравенства доходов на нашу демократию. Как утверждал Аристотель в "Политике" две тысячи лет назад, неравенство доходов опасно для демократии. Возможность извлечь выгоду из государственной службы и отказаться от верховенства закона столь же рискованна.

Автократы решительно сопротивляются таким мерам. Они понимают, что республиканский контроль находится под угрозой. Но чтобы успешно решать стоящие перед нами серьезные проблемы, мы должны понимать, что наша демократия - это не только верховенство права и закона, но и конкуренция идей. Без лучших идей мы не сможем найти нужные решения. Если нет решений, неважно, кто ими управляет.

Посол Дэвид Карден - юрист, дипломат, медиатор и писатель, который был первым постоянным послом США в Ассоциации стран Юго-Восточной Азии (АСЕАН) со статусом Чрезвычайного и Полномочного Посла. До и после посольства он был партнёром в офисах Jones Day в Чикаго, Нью-Йорке и Сингапуре, председательствовал в судебном процессе по ценным бумагам и исполнительной практике SEC, а также был ответственным партнёром по представительствам фирмы в Азии. Автор: David Karden Источник: jurist.org