The word democracy originates from the Greek words demos, meaning “people,” and kratos, meaning “power.” At its core, democracy represents the power of the people. The problem is that no one ever specified which people this power belongs to. This ambiguity is a significant flaw within democracy itself—because “people” vary, and what the people want varies along with them.

​

Imagine, for instance, that the demos (the majority of people) within a democracy decide they no longer want democracy. Here lies a profound paradox: within a democratic system, those who oppose democracy can potentially dismantle it if they outnumber those who support it.

​

So, when we hear claims that a figure like Trump (or insert any relevant name) is a threat to our democracy, it oversimplifies the issue. Trump, as an individual, is not the majority. His closest allies form a relatively small group. Even if he makes anti-democratic statements, these alone don’t pose an immediate threat. However, when nearly half of a nation of 330 million people actively supports his rhetoric, the demos itself is making an anti-democratic statement.

​

If anti-democratic rhetoric is embraced and voted for by the majority—the demos—then, technically, it isn’t anti-democratic. We can’t say that Trump’s rhetoric alone threatens democracy; it’s the people who share and support his views that wield the power to undermine it. As long as elections are free and fair, this is still true democracy. And if, in such elections, the majority chooses to vote against democratic principles, this is democracy manifesting its own potential downfall—ironically, through democratic means.

​

So, what does this mean? The people (demos) may threaten democracy, suggesting that democracy could be a danger to itself. What do we do with this? This isn’t a rhetorical question—it’s a genuine dilemma.

​

For example, in a modern democratic society like the United States, if the majority decided to impose a national ban on abortion (which probably won’t happen, so don’t worry) or something similarly contentious, the rest of the population would be expected to comply in the name of democracy. Why do we assume the majority always wants the right thing? What if the demos genuinely desires something terrible? The minority would have to say, “Well, we used our freedom to vote, and that’s what we chose.” If the minority then starts a coup, it would be anti-democratic.

Does this make the minority a hostage of freedom? Because the majority’s freedom to choose that horrible thing ties the hands of the minority who doesn’t want it.

​

So, freedom is threatening freedom, and democracy is threatening democracy. How do we solve this conundrum?

​

IG: @lanagukina, @zenit_1979