Carte Blanche: Lack of consent in the modern democracy

Elimende Inagella

Of the 173 recognized countries in the world, nearly half are democracies, or some variation of democracy. Governments are established by the people and are elected through a ballot box. Each new administration then claims a mandate from the people to govern and enact policies the people have called for. How true is that really? After an election is held by countries that proclaim they are democratic, what follows next involves coercion. These same nations have a mindset that implies consent from the people to do as they are told, since governments act on their behalf. The reality is that the same parties and institutions that hold control over rarely, if ever, get the consent of the people before enacting policies, and instead act on the idea that whatever the government enacts is for the greater good. That is, what benefits the majority. Governments often ignore the majority's opinions, and at other times infringe on the rights of the majority or the minority, depending on what is politically beneficial or on the morality of those holding high office. Laws are drafted and enacted regardless of public opinion, or even in the face of what can be perceived as a legitimate attempt at democracy through a plebiscite, ignoring voters altogether. The result is a system in which many nations that claim to be democracies are, in fact, authoritarian, all while masquerading as free and fair societies.

When it comes to morality in the US, it must be remembered that the Puritans were among the first pilgrims to settle in North America. They fled the UK for a host of issues, but among them was the belief that they were too sinful and generally had too much fun across the pond. Centuries later, we still deal with the fallout of their moral strictness. Drinking, gambling, smoking, or even celebrating Christmas have been banned or heavily regulated at one time or another in the nation's history. One issue in particular that has faced heavy scrutiny and regulation is pornography. Under the guise of public safety, over 25 states have enacted age verification laws requiring those who wish to view the material to present state IDs for scanning and third-party verification before they can view it in their state. There are plenty of Americans who don't wish to consent to these policies out of the same logic the state implies: safety. Third-party sites are hacked, or their data is sold regularly. The risk of blackmail or even identity theft has increased many times over because the government has decided it would be safer for children with new measures in place. The morality used, especially by those who use religion to support it, infringes on the liberties of the average citizen without their consent and at their cost. Americans have to demonstrate, yet again, their qualifications to exercise their First Amendment rights. Between state legislatures and the Supreme Court, the idea of consent is established, regardless of those who object, in the name of democracy.

IF the will of the people, a legitimate mandate, is achieved by a direct vote on an issue by the people, then surely the government must implement it, right? In November 2024, California held a vote on Proposition 36. The key takeaways from the legislation are the harsher penalties on crimes ranging from harder drugs like fentanyl to property damage and theft. Of the 58 counties in California, all voted overwhelmingly to pass the measure. 68% of voters voted to pass the Proposition, a clear majority. However, despite the will of the people to see it done, neither the state legislature nor Governor Gavin Newsom has appropriated funds to implement the policies, nor have they provided support to see the new measures enacted. The behavior of those entrusted with high office shows contempt for the consent of the people when their opinions differ. Furthermore, they use their station to ensure that little, if anything, is done to carry out the mandate they are given when they dislike what the voters tell them. The danger is that consent is not only taken for granted when laws are politically expedient or advantageous to political leaders but totally ignored and utterly flaunted when they are not. The idea of democracy is given legitimacy only when a desired end state is achieved, regardless of the desires of the citizens who make up the country.

For more than a few election cycles, democracy has been on the line. At least that is what plenty of candidates have claimed when they were running against those they accused of tyrannical behavior and impulses. Despite those claims, it has mattered little who won when it came to the freedoms and the consent of those they governed. If city councils or presidents can enact whatever measures they deem fit and truly ignore the people when they are given the chance to speak up, is there such a thing as consent in America? Shouldn't the question be asked why anyone pays taxes if we never really get to decide how or where it's spent? The will of the people is what every administration since George Washington has claimed to ensure their legitimacy. However, as we are on the verge of celebrating our 250th anniversary as an independent nation, a tradition has taken hold that makes legitimacy seem little more than a convenient phrase. When the day comes that we celebrate the freedoms our forebears knew but we read about in museums, another exhibit will be added about consent and how it became a thing of the past that stifled freedom and the government.