Executive aggrandizement

This is not a current events discussion group, but nearly all the topics we do relate to present concerns since not too far beneath their surface usually lurk perennial unresolved problems. One of them is behind the headlines: how should human communities be governed? If we think it should be democratically, then why do democracies eventually produce autocrats? Plato noticed 2400 years ago.

In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors said, “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power… These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.”

Thrasymachus, near the beginning of Plato’s Republic, reminds us that justice is what serves the stronger, and a little later, that it is what serves the state.(1) Put these stipulations together and you get Stephen Miller’s claim.

We covered the topic of executive aggrandizement seven years ago. We are revisiting it to see if what was said then is still true, truer than ever, or may have changed. It is a review in preparation for an upcoming examination of what may be done about it… Proposed solutions should first get clear about their corresponding problem. (Also, the club was much smaller then – another reason for review.)

The problem, we will ultimately argue, is with how democracy is implemented, specifically what is wrong with “electoral representative democracy,” more specifically still, with the “electoral” part. We will try to make the case that, despite Plato’s complaint, democracy in some form is morally defensible, but that it cannot work at scale via “elections.” It is hard to see how “representation” could be avoided at scale, but must it take electoral form? Is there another way?…

Political scientist Nancy Berneo put her finger on what is problematic about electoral systems:

"Executive aggrandizement. Executive aggrandizement contrasts with all forms of coupmaking in that it takes place without executive replacement and at a slower pace. This more common form of [democratic] backsliding occurs when elected executives weaken checks on executive power one by one, undertaking a series of institutional changes that hamper the power of opposition forces to challenge executive preferences. The disassembling of institutions that might challenge the executive is done through legal channels, often using newly elected constitutional assemblies or referenda. Existing courts or legislatures may also be used, in cases where supporters of the executive gain majority control of such bodies. Indeed, the defining feature of executive aggrandizement is that institutional change is either put to some sort of vote or legally decreed by a freely elected official — meaning that the change can be framed as having resulted from a democratic mandate."(2)

We need unpack this claim because it is necessary to begin to make progress — if that is possible... Later this Spring we will entertain a new development in political philosophy, a field where genuine innovation has been rare — again, as Plato would notice, if he were around today.

‽

The original 2019 writeup “Pitting devils, democracy, and ‘executive aggrandizement’” for this topic is here. It is being revised and updated.

1. Stephen Everson translates Thrasymachus’ claims more precisely: ‘justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger’ and ‘justice is the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule’ (The Republic, 338e6–339a2). “Thrasymachus on Justice, Rulers, and Laws in Republic I,” Journal of Ancient Philosophy (2020). pp. 76-98.

2. From “On Democratic Backsliding,” Nancy Bermeo, Journal of Democracy, 27 (January 2016), pp. 10-11. Note that this was likely written nearly a year before the U.S. 2016 election.