Democratic Systems of Government Embody No Affirmative Morality

By John-Michael Kuczynski

Let’s suppose you have a theocracy. Whatever its merits or defects, that system of government embodies an affirmative conception of virtue. It may be wrong, even grotesque. But it stands for something. It has a substantive vision of the good.

Now contrast that with a pure democracy. Everyone votes. Everyone participates. But what does the system stand for?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Democracy Is Procedural, Not Moral

A democratic system—as such—has no built-in conception of the good life. It says nothing about what kind of person is admirable, what kind of character should be cultivated, what kind of behavior should be rewarded.

It simply says:

"Let the majority decide."

That's it. That is not a moral framework. That is a mechanism.

It is procedural to the core. And therefore, spiritually vacuous.

People Have Affirmative Moralities, Even If the System Doesn’t

Of course, people within democratic societies have moral beliefs. Many have powerful conceptions of the good. John Stuart Mill certainly did. He believed deeply in the value of human development, liberty, intelligence, and self-cultivation.

But the political system he defended did not contain that moral content. It borrowed it from him.

This is the key point:

Democracy allows moral content to enter, but it does not produce it.

And that makes it fragile.

Meaningless Systems Are Weak Systems

A system of government that refuses to say what is good cannot defend itself when someone else arrives who can.

If a group with a strong, affirmatively moral worldview enters the scene, the procedural system has no defense. It can’t say:

You’re wrong.
You’re evil.
You threaten the foundation.

It can only say:

"Please vote fairly."

And that’s not enough.

Libertarianism as a Proxy for Meaning

In democratic cultures, you often find proxies for moral vision. Libertarianism is a good example:

It believes the government should be minimal.
It embeds a moral idea: that individuals possess inherent dignity and sovereignty.

So it imports meaning into a structure that otherwise refuses to provide it.

Even early republics (like the early U.S.) made moral judgments about who was capable of civic responsibility. That system may have been flawed, but it was not neutral. It had an ideal citizen in mind.

Today’s democracies do not.

The End of "Cut the Shit" Morality

Older systems could say:

"This person isn't serious. This person lacks virtue. This behavior is beneath a citizen."

Procedural democracies cannot say that.

They have no category for virtue. No standard for seriousness. No way to say: this is good and that is garbage.

All they can say is:

"Did the paperwork get filed correctly? Did the majority approve it?"

That is not governance. That is administration.

Final Thought

A system of government that embodies no affirmative morality is not neutral. It is morally vacated.

And in time, it will be filled by those who do believe something.

Democracy is not inherently evil. But it is inherently empty. And unless that emptiness is filled with genuine vision, it will collapse.

Not because it was defeated.

But because it had nothing to stand for.