The Democratic Dilemma, American Style:

Questions Concerning the Correct Course of Action for a Democratically-Minded Government Official Working for a Democratically Elected But Undemocratically-Minded Government

It’s no coincidence that in the run up to this day, January 20, 2025, the date of the second Trump inauguration, certain past conversations I had while serving as an American diplomat overseas have echoed in my mind with unexpected resonance. Over a 30-year career, I served in several countries during periods of acute political crisis, when democratic order came under threat.¹ I remember professional contacts and friends from those countries giving voice to their private concerns off the record: Did their support for democracy demand that they resist or capitulate?

Photo by Jacob Stone on Unsplash

What would I do if it were me and not them?, I had wondered back then. Which path might I take? While this was a concrete and immediate concern in the countries in question, it seemed academic with respect to my own. I never anticipated we might face a real life democratic dilemma in the United States.

*****

The question is simple and complicated at the same time: What does a patriotic, democratically-minded citizen/government official do in the face of a democratically elected government that is not necessarily democratically-minded and may even threaten democracy?²

Do they try to challenge or block the illegal or undemocratic steps of the government or its politically powerful officials or allies?³ Drawing from the principles, norms, and rules of constitutional democracy, do they try to resist the regime from within? Or do they turn a blind eye and “do what they’re told” by their political masters? Legitimacy lies with the people, and the people have spoken in free and fair elections. Case closed.

Or rather, do they take stock of the situation, decide they want no part of it, and—in the case of the United States, remembering that their only oath is to the Constitution—resign? From there they can either recede into life as a fully private citizen or join those resisting the regime democratically from outside.

*****

The United States is often deemed the world’s longest-standing, uninterrupted democracy (close calls notwithstanding). Its resilient democratic system is characterized by checks and balances, anchored in the Constitution. Political tensions—differences in opinion and perspective that mirror and reflect the competing interests in play—are inevitable in our big, bustling, multi-faceted republic. What would we do without them?

The constitutional system is meant to contain these tensions and channel competing interests in productive directions, to prevent one from imposing itself on the others. Even if imperfect, with structural redundancies and inefficiencies built in, the system is meant to keep things in some degree of balance. No one person or entity is fully in charge. No one child is supposed to have all the toys. The democratic discussion is forever ongoing.

Ideally, the union is also striving to be “more perfect.”

But what happens when the striving moves in the opposite direction? Is the appropriate course of action to smooth the path, file down the checks, undo the balances, and agree in lockstep with unquestioning loyalty, efficiency, and discipline, no matter the steps taken?

Is being democratically elected a license to dismantle democracy?

Is seeking to oppose the dismantling of our democratic system undemocratic?

In other countries we used to call this the “paradox of democracy”. A people are hypothetically free to vote to end government of, by and for the people. And to me as an American, it used to feel distant. Yes, it used to feel academic.

*****

Now, with the past (plus plus) as possible precedent and the potential danger palpable if not inevitable, I realize it is not a paradox so much as a choice. And the patriotic option seems pretty clear. Defending democracy means more than merely honoring the results of a democratic election. It demands defending the principles and practice of democracy: rule of law, separation of powers, a free and open system. Breathing room for disagreement and discussion, and fundamental fairness, too.

So what choice shall it be?

1. These countries included Bolivia during a time of social unrest from 2000-2003–leading to the election of strongman leader Evo Morales as President—and Brazil in the run-up to the 2016 impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. But I heard similar concerns expressed to different degrees in several countries with democracies less fully “consolidated” than our own.

2. The evidence of two impeachments, the January 6 insurrection, and the unwillingness to state in advance that he would accept the results of a democratic election he himself lost, among other incidents and factors, cast our re-elected president’s commitment to democracy in a dubious light. We should hope for the best for the good of all concerned, but be realistic in expecting other possibilities, including the worst.

3. The first impeachment was triggered by the whistle-blowing report of a career official who saw evidence of presidential usurpation of congressional authorities, among other things.