Democracy for dummies

 

The clip above is a 50-minute lecture by Irish Traditionalist Keith Woods about democracy (or modern “mass” democracy), arguing that it´s essentially fake. The presentation is based on the book “Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government” by Christopher H Achen and Larry M Bartels, which I haven´t read. The short story is that the so-called rational voter doesn´t exist, and neither does his/her close cousin the rationally ignorant voter. The authors quote various surveys showing that many voters don´t know the platforms of the political parties they vote for, nor their actual policies or the outcomes of these. Indeed, many voters are driven more by base party loyalty, group identities or irrational “values” rather than ideology or even general political preferences. Many potential voters are stunningly ignorant of even the most basic political or ideological issues, or even what parties are on the ballot!

I have several problems with this presentation. For instance, why should it be a *problem* that voters are group-oriented rather than individualist? This seems to be a very “American” or “classically liberal” way of looking at general elections. It´s of course interesting that not even US democracy works like this! In Sweden, by contrast, it was long *assumed* that of course most citizens vote according to which special interest group they happen to belong to. Industrial workers voted Social Democrat, farmers voted Center Party, other business owners voted Conservative, and so on. (I suppose skinheads voted Sweden Democrat?) Maybe the real problem with “mass” democracy is precisely that it claims to be something it really isn´t: a system in which rational individual voters transcend their group interests? But why is that taken to be an argument against modern democracy, per se? (In passing, Woods mentions that he isn´t opposed to local direct democracy, but of course the same problem applies there, too, unless the community is extremely small and everyone is equal – hardly likely in a “traditionalist” society!)

At best, democracy does lead to “responsive” governments by two (similar) routes: either the government arbitrates between different group interest, or one of the group interests (usually the emerging middle classes) integrate other groups into its orbits (such as the workers´ movement at one end and the traditional elites on the other). A peaceful transfer of government power is ensured, but so is a more fundamental continuity. The loyalty of the individual citizens to the system is assured by such things as freedom of worship, freedom to start your own business, the relative lack of corruption, and so on. At least in a 20^th century Western society, no better form of government was ever discovered…

From this, we can also predict what might destroy a democracy. One obvious factor is that the groups in society become too incompatible. Mass immigration with attendant failed assimilation is one such example. Another is a permanent economic decline, in which groups the interests of which could previously be reconciled start fighting each other again (workers versus corporations being the most “classical” example). Ironically, a less group-oriented approach to politics might also undermine really existing democracy, as the electorate becomes more atomized, especially if the atomization is coupled with “value”-driven individualism. Indeed, atomization and anomie in an electorate then leads straight to “value”-driven collectivism instead, as the populist Great Leader uses his charisma to “unite” the splintered people again...

But sure, the above might not strictly speaking be “predictions” at all, but rather statements made after the fact!

With that, I close this little discussion.