Democratic institutions resilient and malleable

Successful democratic systems are not designed for governments composed of ethical men and women who are only interested in the public good. If leaders were always virtuous there would be no need for checks and balances. The Founding Fathers understood this. They designed a system to protect minority points of view and to protect us from leaders inclined to lie, cheat and steal. Fortunately, we haven’t had many of those in our 200-plus years of history, which is why the Trump presidency sent such shock waves through a large part of the body politic.

Those who bemoan Trump’s effect on democracy complain that he did not adhere to the established norms of the presidency. That is correct; he is, at heart, a dictator. But let’s start by distinguishing between norms and institutions. Norms are different from laws; they are not enforceable and they evolve. In contrast, democratic institutions are based in law and entail real consequences. Changes in norms can in fact lead to changes in law and in democratic institutions—this has happened in many of the countries in eastern Europe and Latin America that have slipped into pseudo-democracy or autocracy. [1] But in spite of Donald Trump’s best efforts it has not happened here. At least not yet.

To get a sense of why I argue that the guardrails of democracy have held, let’s look at the five major institutions that protect us from rule by an aspiring dictator: Congress, the courts, the federal system, the press and the civil service. Not a single one of them has lost legal power during Trump’s turbulent presidency. Refusing to use power is not the same as losing the power.