Suffrage: A Necessary but Insufficient Condition
Erwin Chemerinsky and António Guterres remind us that definitions matter. By Luke Pickrell
In No Democracy Lasts Forever, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, devotes a short chapter to the uses and abuses of the Internet, social media, and AI. Chemerinsky argues that foreign interference in US elections, especially from Russia, should be taken when technology makes it increasingly hard for voters to know what’s real. He encourages Congress to pass stricter disclosure requirements to help people understand how campaigns are waged during election season and warns that left unregulated, the Internet and social media “pose serious threats to democracy.” The problem is apparently so severe that UC Berkeley Law created the nation’s first AI-focused law degree program.
In my review of Chemerinsky’s book, I said that the chapter felt unfocused and out of place. I couldn’t understand its importance, especially compared to a mostly sound constitutional critique. I concluded that Chemerinsky and his colleagues must have multiple interests. Hence, a chapter about the Internet alongside an argument for a new constitution. I advised Chemerinsky and his colleagues to pick their battles one at a time, starting with the struggle for democracy.
I also dinged Chemerinsky for playing fast and loose with his definition of democracy, a common issue among constitutional critics. According to him, democracy is when "the winner of an election governs" and "voters choose their elected officials," but it’s also "one person, one vote.” The US has always been a democracy; even though the framers hated the idea, the Senate has always been a minoritarian institution, and apartheid existed in the South until the 1960s.
But it turns out Chemerinsky’s interest in technology isn’t just a matter of competing projects. He’s not Batman, fighting the Constitution by day and arguing for AI laws by night. It’s also not a strange quirk. Instead, Chemerinsky’s tech interest, particularly in AI, is symptomatic of a deeper belief that universal suffrage is a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy. In other words, he thinks voting defines democracy.
The United Nations helped me understand what was going on. Less than two weeks after I reviewed No Democracy Lasts Forever, UN Secretary-General António Guterres marked International Day of Democracy with a warning, not about unelected Supreme Courts or malapportioned Senates, but AI. “Left unchecked, the dangers posed by artificial intelligence could have serious implications for democracy, peace, and stability,” Guterres stated. AI can be used for good, but only through “effective governance.” It’s essential to consider the impact of technology “in a year where more than 50 countries – representing half of the global population – are holding elections.”
Chemerinsky and Guterres have a lot in common. When the cards are down, neither can resist the common “suffrage only” definition of democracy, which gives the Constitution a free pass. Deep down, both think suffrage (and a sort of clear-eyed, fallacy-free suffrage) is a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy. Hence, people can mark International Day of Democracy with a straight face. Both think that unregulated AI will interfere with the voting process by impeding voter’s ability to make decisions based on accurate information. Therefore, democracy and AI are connected, and a book about the Constitution needs a chapter on technology.
Without a baseline definition grounded in universal and equal suffrage, democracy can be almost anything one wants. It can be whatever China isn’t, whatever Trump wants to take away, or whatever the Democratic Party wants to protect. Democracy could be something as vague as “a continuous process of egalitarian inclusion and power sharing made possible by tireless agitators” (Astra Taylor), “a system in which parties lose elections” (Adam Przeworski, repeated by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt), or a society in which “the winner of an election governs” (Chemerinsky). It could be something threatened by “fake speech,” “political polarization,” “echo chambers,” and “foreign interference in elections” (Chemerinsky).
Faced with all this noise, I continue insisting that democracy is unimpeded political power in a single legislative body elected by universal and equal suffrage. Suffrage is a necessary but insufficient condition; it must be present, but it alone does not provide democracy.
The obvious retort to the argument that the Internet, social media, and AI threaten democracy is — what democracy? Essential questions, including those surrounding AI, can only be explored democratically when every person has an equal vote. We can discuss the potential threats to democracy when democracy exists.
Good article! Luke is really on a roll. But one suggestion: instead of "single legislative body," might I suggest national or international ASSEMBLY? A legislative body just sits there, whereas assembling is something the people DO. They aren't represented by individual legislators. Rather, they assert themselves via parties that they themselves have created to advance their political goals. Democracy is not just a process, but a movement in which the masses continually shape and re-shape the social environment in their own interest. The alternative is a Chemerinsky-style a passive democracy in which people merely vote without asking inconvenient questions as to what the process even means.