Gerontocracy: Are the old hacking democracy?

After reading this article this morning, I began to wonder about the effects of population growth and decline on democracy. Baby boomers represent a huge lump in the nation’s population. Because of their age and their having been brought up around the same time, they’ll have similar perspectives on issues — and thus, similar interests. A politician who addresses the concerns of the baby boomers garners the support of an unusually large demographic. Because of their limited time horizon — as in, their interest in the world after they die is sentimental at best — pandering to them often comes at the expense of younger demographics. I’m sure this has been asked before, but do population fluctuations represent a structural exploit in even the most robust democracy?

Democracy theoretically spreads the power of government over all those it affects, in the hopes that spreading out power will make it hard for any one voice to dictate the nation’s course. Even if you were able to forge a majority out of some specific interest group, that majority’s constituents would still share plenty with the rest of the populace: a common interest in the nation’s continued improvement, for example. Accountants might fight for disclosure reform, but they would do so knowing that there will always be accountants, so they want their laws to be somewhat sustainable. When dealing with age-based coalitions, that concern evaporates: the old have no incentive to care for a future they will not live to see.

Population bubbles, thus, exploit democracy’s core weakness — the many may strong-arm the few — but poison it further: once the many get old and die, the few will inherit the mess that the many had no reason to deal with. Consider Japan’s aging population and its crusty government, or Europe’s similar predicament, or our own. Do the old represent democracy’s fatal flaw?


One thought on “Gerontocracy: Are the old hacking democracy?

  1. Interestingly enough I believe the sentimentalism of adults towards wanting the best for their children is quite powerful or at least powerfully deceiving. All adults/baby-boomers want the best for the next upcoming generation and through this emotional connection alone they will be unable to admit the lackadaisical pro-action to represent their needs in governmental political actions. What’s that action going to be, reform and/or regulation? Either direct or indirect no young generation blossoms under these circumstances. Ultimately this will be a move of the young and talented to find greener pastures where innovation and the free market exists. This migration towards opportunity is the sense of professional encouragement the younger generation seeks and will fulfill. The problem now lies in the US’s future or current brain drain.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s