In these politically turbulent times, the “illusion of democracy is fading worldwide” as one pundit wrote recently. There is a growing sense in the West that “democracy” is not working well, but there is not yet a full and clear recognition of that fact. Michel Maffesoli, honorary professor at the Sorbonne in Paris, has been saying already for several years, that “the end of the democratic ideal is manifesting itself.” Signs of this can be seen in the problematic elections that have taken place in his native France and other Western countries.
The “ideal” or “illusion” of democracy comes from widespread misconceptions about this political system, despite clear misgivings from the most illustrious political thinkers of the past. The most important misconceptions about democracy are that elected representatives are generally loyal and disinterested, and that the electorate is generally informed and rational with regard to politics.
David Hume wrote in his famous Essays (1777) that democracy cannot be “representative” because all societies are “governed by the few.” Sociologist Robert Michels then defined, in his ground-breaking work on political parties (1911), what he called the “iron law of oligarchy,” methodically showing that all mature organizations, without exception, become oligarchic (i.e., ruled by minorities).
For the early democratic movements of the 19th century, representative democracy was generally not perceived as truly democratic; the Athenian model was the ideal. As Robert Michels noted, it was only when the practical impossibilities of direct democracy on a large scale became evident, that the concept of political representation gained legitimacy. Over time, this concept became synonymous with “democracy.”
Montesquieu considered in The Spirit of the Laws (1739) that the main justification for the representative system is not only that the average person does not have the time or the interest to engage in political life, but that he is incompetent to do so. Tocqueville warned in Democracy in America (1835) that one of the potential threats to democracy is that people can become so absorbed by the pursuit of economic opportunities that they lose interest in politics.
Indeed, the majority has neither the interest nor the motivation to get deeply involved in politics. Voters implicitly understand that their vote is just a small drop in an ocean of ballots and will, by itself, make no difference in the election outcome. It has also been argued by some that not only do voters lack the interest and motivation, they also lack the time and the capability of thinking rationally about politics, as political theorist James Burnham summarized in his essential work, The Machiavellians (1943):
The inability of the masses to function scientifically in politics rests primarily on the following factors: the huge size of the mass group, which makes it too unwieldy for the use of scientific techniques; the ignorance, on the part of the masses, of the methods of administration and rule; the necessity, for the masses, of spending most of their energies on the bare making of a living, which leaves little energy or time for gaining more knowledge about politics or carrying out practical political tasks; the lack, in most people, of a sufficient degree of those psychological qualities—ambition, ruthlessness, and so on—that are prerequisites for active political life.
Though these insights about political representation have long been known, they have been suppressed in order to maintain the illusion of majority rule. “Democracy” has such a positive connotation in the Western value system that it is understandably difficult for most people to accept that they do not “rule” in any meaningful sense. This reality is all the more difficult to grasp since some policies from the ruling minority do, and even must, consider majority public opinion to some extent. If pressed, most people would nevertheless admit that though they have elected “representatives,” they actually have no real say over several areas (e.g., foreign, monetary, and trade policy), even though these areas impact their lives greatly.
The Inherent Instability of All Political Systems
Though the illusion of democracy is slowly fading in the West, it is not so much because of a realization of the truths presented above. Rather, it is because representative democracy, like all political systems, is inherently unstable. It has long been known that conditions constantly change, to paraphrase Heraclitus, but it is not widely understood that political systems are ill-suited for this basic reality. Though democracy might sometimes seem to work well, the never-ending economic, social, demographic, and technical changes to society make such impressions short-lived.
Regardless of the political system, the power balance at any given time between state and society, and between the ruling minority and the ruled majority, is constantly disrupted by such changing conditions. The seemingly inexorable increase in state interventionism has a negative impact on wealth-creation and private property, forcing socialization, and leading to a rise in political tensions. When the state becomes more bureaucratic, it fails to keep up with a changing society, and thereby destabilizes the power balance. Further, political tensions also arise if the ruling minority pushes a political agenda that disregards or even antagonizes the majority.
Democracy, in particular, is subject to constant swings of political tensions due to its inherent lack of fairness: the losing side of an election (more than half in plurality systems) is not represented. As Gustave de Molinari wrote, democracy “insist[s] that the decisions of the majority must become law, and that the minority is obliged to submit to it, even if it is contrary to its most deeply rooted convictions and injures its most precious interests.” Voting phenomena like Duverger’s Law and Arrow’s paradox tend to soften Molinari’s stark description but, by distorting election results, they hardly make them more representative or more fair.
When the state’s size and power is limited (i.e., statist interventionism in society is weak), the state’s record as defender of property rights would naturally be considered more important than whether or not the majority is democratically represented. Conversely, when the state’s power is extensive (i.e., the state is strongly interventionist), whether at a national or supranational level, the majority surely has high expectations from democracy since the direction of society hangs, grotesquely, on the decisions of its executive and legislative branches.
A Necessary Reduction of State Power
It is possible then to conclude that a limitation of state power is necessary in order to reduce political tensions in society and to introduce much-needed stability, regardless of whether or not the political system is considered “democratic.” This requires a decentralization of decision-making and a reduction of the role of the state, by strengthening the free market and individual rights. The result would be a freer society, able to adapt more naturally and harmoniously to the changing conditions. Thus, what is needed is “more freedom” rather than “more democracy.”
Unfortunately, the illusion of democracy has led the majorities in the West to conflate democracy with freedom. This is a significant mistake because democracy is no guarantee for freedom, even if majority rule were possible. On the contrary, when concessions to the majority have been made, such as welfare spending through fiscal redistribution, these have had deleterious effects on society and reduced economic freedom. As Tocqueville said, “I dearly love liberty and respect for rights, but not democracy.”
Considering the misconceptions about political representation that have been presented here, it is high time to fully smash the illusion of democracy in the West and substitute freedom for democracy as the highest political goal to attain and to protect.
