Democracy in the 21st Century
by Scott Nelson
21 September 2019
Applying for fellowships has forced me to think of topics of perhaps greater relevance to the public than one generally finds in my elucubrations. The initial inspiration for this piece, for whose discombobulated style I apologize in advance, is a research proposal I would like to put together concerning democracy in the 21st century.
Brexit, Trump, and the rise of right wing parties all over Europe have resulted in several books concerning democracy in our time. I’m thinking, for example, of David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends, Yascha Mounk’s The People vs Democracy, Steven Levitsky’s and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die, David Van Reybrouck’s Against Elections, etc. The present prognosis for democracy is grim. Whether this pessimism is well-founded or not, I cannot yet say, although we would appear to be far from the horror of democracy gone wild, as described in Plato’s Republic (here citing Cicero’s clearer paraphrase):
When…the insatiable throats of the people are parched with thirst for liberty, and through the aid of evil ministers have drained in their thirst a pure draught of liberty instead of a moderate mixture, then unless the magistrates and the leaders are very mild and lenient and serve up liberty to them generously, the people persecute, attack, and accuse them, calling them overpowerful kings or tyrants…Those who obey the leaders are attacked by the people and called willing slaves; but they shower with praise and give exorbitant honors to magistrates who act like private citizens and private citizens who act as if there were no difference between private citizens and magistrates. In such a commonwealth everything is inevitably filled with liberty: private homes have no master, and this evil extends even to animals; ultimately fathers fear their sons, sons neglect their fathers, all sense of shame is lost, and they are utterly free. There is no difference between citizen and foreigner, the teacher fears his pupils and fawns on them, pupils scorn their teachers, the young take on the gravity of old men, while old men are reduced to children’s games, so as not to be hateful or tiresome. Slaves behave with too much freedom, women have the same rights as their husbands, and even dogs and horses and asses go about so freely in this atmosphere of liberty that people have to get out of their way in the streets. The final outcome of this extreme licenses…is that the minds of citizens become so delicate and sensitive that if the least authority is brought to bear on them they are angered and unable to endure it; the result is that they begin to ignore the laws as well, so that they are utterly without any master.
Cicero, De republica I, 66-68. This is Cicero’s loose translation of Plato, Republic 8.562c-563e.
Or not… Well, at least we don’t permit slavery anymore. I find myself allergic to apocalyptic visions of any variety, and so whatever the flaws of our liberal democracy, it has also brought us a great many benefits. What follows is a series of disjointed ruminations concerning democracy in the 21st century.
What distinguishes democracy in the 21st century from previous times? There are two aspects to this question. One is “what is unique exclusively about the 21st century and democracy?”. The other aspect is “what can we say about democracy in the 21st century that we could also generally have said about democracy in other centuries, only with different specifics?”. The latter question would include populism, for example, a phenomenon not unique to our time. The former question is perhaps directed more towards the effects of technology and instantaneous communication on democracy. Let’s see some of the answers we can come up with to the first question.
1. Speed of information travel
Leaders have less time to plan and react. Sometimes politicians are informed of crises through the news. The population also become aware more quickly of events that have occurred. They can also potentially more easily coordinate collective responses (e.g. Arab Spring).
2. Sources of information
There are multiplying forms of media, which can enable or prevent politicians from communicating with the electorate. Twitter, for example, is an enabling force; on the other hand, the editing of politicians’ speeches can sometimes be a preventive force, potentially distorting their message. The media have consequently become a political actor in their own right. They have also become democratized, since any one of us can now play the role of a reporter. In the last analysis, we the people are both the electorate and the media. This dual role means that a greater responsibility has been foisted upon us, the electorate, to sift through information and make informed decisions if democracy is to function at all as it’s supposed to. But in practice it increasingly feels as if there were scant hope of actually digging to the bottom of an issue when there are so many conflicting views, many of which are backed up by contradictory pieces of evidence. People have neither the time nor the inclination to stay abreast of every little political matter that could potentially affect them. Isn’t this why we have representatives do the work for us, so that we can get on with our non-political concerns? It’s not such a bad thing not to be concerned with politics 24/7. A great civilization (if this is important to us) is not necessarily built on people obsessing over politics alone; civil society is needed in order for us to aspire, create, and collaborate in realms that have nothing to do with politics. If we were more politically engaged, as democracy requires of us, as Switzerland is, would we not run the risk of becoming totalitarian? If totalitarianism is the absorption of civil society by the state, we might mentally totalitarianize ourselves by obsessing over politics all the time.
One of the other consequences of the increasingly complex web of information and communication is that it has become more difficult to figure out who actually holds and wields power. Conspiracy theories – the secular variant of “God-is-behind-it-all” – step in to offer easy explanations for such a complicated world.
3. Democracy à la Roman Republic
People bemoan the sordid sources of news out there today. It’s not so different from the 19th century or even the Roman Republic, for that matter. We report hearsay and must take everything with a grain of salt. Gone, perhaps permanently, is that very unique time period of history, the three decades or so following the Second World War, where cable television and its limited channels created a consensus on a national level (wars are always wonderful for creating consensus). Perhaps we’ve returned to the slagging of politicians and each other not uncommon in the political pamphlets of the 19th century or the indecent street talk of ancient Rome. In fact, I would venture to say we are more like the Romans than our recent post-WWII ancestors. The Romans suffered from a lack of information while we are inundated with too much of it. The inevitable result is uncertainty in our decision-making, in terms of whom or what to believe. The Roman people too were heeded, but their level of democratic participation was about the same as ours today. For all of the lip-service we regularly pay to democracy and the abstract notion of “the people”, the elites have become more important today, much as they were in Rome.
4. Elites
The result of our lack of time and interest in informing ourselves about every little political issue, combined with the far more numerous sources of information, is that we must either learn to be comfortable with uncertain knowledge, or we must find certainty in our prejudices and in those sources that we trust for whatever reason, or we must grow disillusioned with politics and withdraw. The potential for elites (political, media, cultural) to frame issues for us increases instead. Is there then the potential for even greater conflicts between the elites and the people? I would say so. An elite is inevitable, whether it be the political ruling class, the business elite, the cultural elite, etc. It is inevitable because we cannot all be leaders, a fact conveniently forgotten amidst all of the leadership training courses we invest in and the usual genuflections to “creating the leaders of tomorrow”. We must know how to lead, but also how to follow. Perhaps we should start offering “competent and critical follower” courses alongside our leadership training. Any organization, whether political or otherwise, with some hope of acting efficiently, must begin to concentrate decision-making in a smaller group of people, so as to put an end to constant debate and the temptation to please absolutely everyone at the table. Does the composition of the elites tell us something about the functioning of society? Raymond Aron drew on Auguste Comte and examined four categories of elite: 1. Spiritual leaders (priests, intellectuals, scientists). 2. Political leaders (administration, head of military/police). 3. Economic leaders (owners of the means of production, managers). 4. Leaders of the masses. This is as good a starting point as any. What is important to note, regardless of the taxonomy, is that the elites of today are no longer unified as they were in the ancien régime. It is possible today for the academic elite to lean left while the business elite leans right. It is possible for a country to move both leftward and rightward at the same time, depending on whether one is discussing cultural or economic issues.
5. Forms of democratic participation
This has consequences for how we think about democratic participation. Have we done our democratic duty – (how old-fashioned it is to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!) – when we take to the streets in protest? Or even if we register our support for or opposition to some policy online? At least online there are no spatial boundaries and I can connect with more like-minded people with a minimum of effort. But is the simple airing of grievances a legitimate form of democratic participation, even if such complaints do not issue in any changes? Voting, as we all know, is rather unpopular among youth. Voting is the only way to effect legislative change – legislative changes that might be promptly reversed after the next election when the incumbent is kicked out. Maybe legislative victories are too hollow for those of an impatient, democratic spirit. Is the true task to effect a total change in hearts and minds?
6. Personality and Political Parties
Do we still care about voting at the local level, or do we feel that all of our problems will be solved at the national level? In Westminster systems we are supposed to elect a party, an MP in our constituency who will represent our interests when he goes to Parliament in the capital city. How many of us know the name of our local MP? We vote increasingly for a personality, on the basis of charisma. What is the future of the political party in the 21st century? Its original purpose, I believe, was to provide a coalition of interests, and one that would enjoy greater longevity than that provided by any single individual. We knew that this MP was reliable because he belonged to such and such a party, whose reputation was already known to us. But if we are becoming more ADHD, so to speak, in our conduct of democracy – due to TV, YouTube, and the tendency for politics to become more like reality TV – then perhaps we might dispense with political parties entirely and simply select charismatic individuals to lead us. If this is true then this will be another respect in which we more closely resemble the Roman Republic.
7. Foreign policy
The conduct of foreign policy might also be affected by the democratic ethos. When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lectures the Chinese on the lack of gender equity in their government, he forgets that the Chinese are not concerned with such matters, but he scores points with his supporters back home (and provides easy fodder for the National Post the following day). Foreign policy is easily forgotten by a democratic people who are always more concerned with matters closer to home. How can a coherent and long term foreign policy be pursued by democratic countries? It is as if we were playing a game of chess and our adversary is constant, whereas every turn we must switch a new player in to pick up where the old one left off. Not only that, the new player’s suitability for the role is determined greatly by his (at least vocal) opposition to the strategy of his predecessor.
8. Components of Democracy
I mentioned earlier David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends. His thesis seems thoughtful. He asks us to consider different narratives of democracy and that the more recent narrative – which emphasizes universal franchise, professionalized parties, mass mobilization, mass literacy/communication, the ability of the state to deliver certain services (welfare, taxation, etc.) – is but a century old and is the most likely narrative to come to an end. This does not necessarily mean that other narratives of democracy, such as the ~250 year old one that is representative democracy, or the 2500 year old one that begins with the Ancient Greeks, will be ending any time soon. The 100 year old narrative started but a couple of decades ago in Hungary. It is perhaps only natural that Hungary’s model of democracy will look somewhat different, as its roots have hardly been planted. If Runciman is correct, then we should ask what are some of the components that have often been associated with democracy in our day, and which of them are more likely to be lost? Here are some components:
- Popular sovereignty
- Voting, elections
- Peaceful transfer of power
- Rule of law
- Equality before law
- Separation of powers
- Political parties / pluralism
- Constitution
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of association
- Accountability
Obviously this is a far from exhaustive list. Someone of a more socialist persuasion would point out that the enjoyment of many of the aforementioned democratic aspects presupposes a certain minimum socioeconomic level. In this reading, democracy requires socialism. These components all have different weightings. Every country in the world at least nominally believes in popular sovereignty, but we wouldn’t say that every country in the world is a true democracy. A constitution, written or not, along with rule of law also appear to be fairly fundamental to a functioning democracy. So is the peaceful transfer of power. When it comes to pluralism or freedom of speech then countries such as Hungary or even Singapore come up short. Are they less democratic as a result? Is illiberal democracy possible? Or, contrary to what many modern commentators think, is it even that democracy has the inherent capacity to be illiberal, i.e. the tyranny of the majority? Accountability is increasingly lost as the bureaucracy gets bigger and decisions are lost in the morass of approvals processes and procedures. And I have mentioned all of this without even once bringing up the issue of the nation-state. Does a democracy not require, as international law would have it, a territory, a people, and sovereignty? With more people travelling for work or even just moving than in earlier times, what should happen to the idea of citizenship? I have lived in Austria for over a decade and am still unable to participate in the democratic process here, while I still can in Canada. I am affected more by Austrian politics than by Canadian politics. Why should I have the right to vote in Canada but not in Austria?
Some final thoughts:
Democracy is interesting in its tendency towards compromises that have the potential not to satisfy anyone and which can result in extremist backlash. If compromise is one of the principles of democracy, we should also beware the tendency to assume an administrative or parliamentary compromise is an effective way of solving the problems before us. Speaking of solving problems, we like to invest all of our hopes in a single individual who will solve everything. Long live the king! Will democracy in the 21st century come to resemble monarchies of old, with the focus on a single leader, and perhaps even the creation of a dynasty that will ensure a greater continuity of policy-making than the electoral upheavals we experience every few years? The pressures and expectations of prime ministers and presidents today is unlike anything their predecessors a century ago would have experienced.
Not only that, but we have begun to set some problems for ourselves that democracy on its own will be entirely unable to address, and here I draw and expand on some ideas from one of Runciman’s lectures. As I understand, David Wallace-Wells’ The Uninhabitable Earth is meant to be a wake-up call to everyone about the dangers of climate change. It is apocalyptic in the most Biblical sense of the term. After more or less arguing that we are all doomed, he does attempt to leave us with a sliver of hope: get out there and vote. If his analysis is correct – and while I do not have the scientific knowledge to comment on climate change, I can most certainly call out some of the environmentalists’ doomsday histrionics for the fearmongering that they are – then his solution is wholly inadequate. China is, in absolute terms, by far the worst CO2 emitter in the world. The US is a comparatively distant second with India, Russia, Japan, etc. following thereafter. On a per capita level the biggest culprits are many Western and Arab countries. Now, the Chinese seem to have woken up ever so slowly to the negative health effects that smog has on their population (the health of their people having been a greater incentive to action than the fustian pronouncements of the child-Messiah Greta Thunberg). Whether they will extend this same Johnny-come-lately environmental courtesy to their investments in Africa is another matter entirely. In any case, such a problem cannot be solved by democracy. Either the analysis is incorrect or the means we have chosen to address it are incorrect. But if I am to take some of the more extreme environmentalists at their word, then we really don’t have a lot of time. At home in all Western countries would we not need to scrap any pretense to democratic niceties and dictatorially impose a zero-carbon economy? There are otherwise too many interest groups and climate change deniers to prevent the swift and extreme action that would have to be taken. On an international level a deal would have to be made with the Chinese to drastically reduce their emissions as well. They might ask for any number of things in return, but presumably the survival of the planet would make it worth it. And if they treat the climate change treaty with the same flippancy that characterizes their attitude towards intellectual property, say, then would the West, i.e. the United States, have to be ready to go to war with China if all other means fail? Would we consider a country that so carelessly abuses the planet and jeopardizes the future of humanity an enemy of humanity?
The environmental issue is particularly interesting in the context of the points raised above regarding democracy in the 21st century. It encompasses many of the earlier categories that I mentioned: sources of information, forms of democratic participation, personality, and foreign policy. Its global nature also means that no one national democracy can solve it on its own. It is also far too great a matter to be explored any further in this article. For the moment I’ll take heart from the words of an unacknowledged ancestor of today’s environmentalists, Karl Marx: “Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.”
