Democracy at Risk: Trust, Decision-Making, and the Challenges Ahead
In her interview, Santa Clara University professor Iris Stewart-Frey emphasizes the need for trust, solidarity, and patience in the decision-making process. She argues that while democracy does not always guarantee perfect decisions, it remains the best safeguard against injustice and tyranny. Comparing business and politics, she warns against applying corporate logic to governance but highlights the value of innovative, solution-driven thinking. Despite the rise of authoritarianism, she sees hope in education, critical thinking, and collective efforts to strengthen democratic institutions.
Based on your experience, what promotes and what hinders democratic decision-making?
Promoting democratic decision-making involves creating conditions that support fairness, inclusion, transparency, and accountability. I want to argue that three more qualities are indispensable. First, it is important not only to create the institutions and laws that serve as pillars for these qualities, but also to bolster the trust that they truly exist. As have seen happening in the United States and elsewhere, if the trust in free and fair elections is eroded, even without any evidence for that claim, there is much greater willingness to accept authoritarian actions aiming to push through a specific political agenda.
Solidarity and Patience: The hidden Strengths of Democratic Decision-Making
Second, democracies thrive through a sense of solidarity, an understanding that the decisions made by the people for the people are for the benefit of the common good. If that solidarity is lost, a willingness to lay blame and seek out scapegoats enters the public discourse and can act like acid seeping through cracks. Third, the acceptance of the time and effort involved to reach democratic decisions, and an understanding that solutions must be periodically revised in an increasingly complex world is paramount. Democracy must differentiate between eternal truths, such as that all humans have equal rights, and the way these truths translate into the policies of a society that may approach these ideals as much as possible. Developing these policies requires an exchange of ideas, the willingness to engage with the depth of the topic, a commitment to civil discourse and the possibility of evolving points of view, all of which can appear messy.
Are democratic decisions always truly good decisions?
How do we define decisions as ‘truly good’? Democratic decisions are as fallible as the human beings that make them, but the process of including all voices in either a direct or representative democratic process is the bulwark against injustices and tyranny and the keystone onto which truly good decisions may be built.
Bad Decisions Happen—But Democracy Can Correct Them
Human history is replete with examples of purported democracies barring certain groups of their own citizens from participating in their democratic process. In the United States, the exclusion of Native American, Black, women, and other communities from voting - in itself highly injust - led to bad democratic decisions of those privileged enough to be able to engage. Yet - as long as democratic institutions and processes are functioning, ‘bad’ democratic decisions can be overturned in nonviolent ways.
How does decision-making practice in business differ from that in politics? What can and should both sides learn from each other?
Should a government be run like a business? I argue a resounding no. The decision-making processes in business are strikingly different from those in politics both in process and in the goals they want to achieve. At its best, democratic decision making is focused on furthering the common good. In businesses, it typically revolves around meeting the needs of stakeholders to ensure profitability and competitiveness. Even with multiple layers of management, business leaders can act more quickly and decisively compared to political institutions, as there are fewer competing interests and regulatory processes. Political decisions reflect a broader consensus, require more transparency, and can be highly scrutinized. Any missteps can lead to significant backlash, including electoral defeat. As such, political leaders typically aim for more cautious, consensus-driven decisions. Business leaders can and should learn from the political arena to think beyond the profit margin. Multiple examples from the US have shown that what is good for people’s welfare beyond the purely economic has led to enduring and successful business operations. On the other hand, politicians could learn from business leaders to strengthen partnerships and out of the box thinking to find solutions.
What future does democracy have considering the rise of authoritarian powers?
This is a brief answer to a question that begs for a full-length article. Authoritarian powers are on the rise, even in an established democracy such as the United States. We are currently in a stage called democratic backsliding, represented by a slippery slope of dismantling all the hallmarks of the institution of democracy: an independent judiciary, separation of power, freedom of expression, free and fair elections, a strong and independent press, checks and balances, and a peaceful transfer of power.
Democracy's Future: Overcoming Backsliding and Embracing Hope
In a large part, this democratic backsliding is made possible by the way social media amplifies - and how people are willing to consume - deliberate misinformation. Democratic backsliding has been reversed in the past, but the slide has not been as steep before. Yet, I believe there is hope for the future of democracy. That hope lies in individuals and institutions that can widely and wildly inspire to support the common good, in widespread education that strengthens critical thinking, and in diversity, equity, and inclusion at all interpersonal and economic levels.
Iris Stewart-Frey is a Professor of Environmental Science, Leader of the Water and Climate Justice Lab, and Co-Coordinator of the Environmental Justice and the Common Good Initiative at Santa Clara University. Her research studies the impact of climate variability and change on water resources using models, and spatial & statistical analysis. She also uses a community-based approach to connect science findings to issues of justice in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Since the end of 2024 she is part of the organizing team of the biennial international conference on Environmental Justice organized by the Lassalle-Institut. She can be reached via istewartfrey@scu.edu and find more information on Santa Clara University’s website.
Interview: Theo Haas