Democracy? You Can Have It!

But do we want it? Really?

There is a podcast called Make Me Smart and one of its sometimes segments consists of correspondents describing some fact they thought they knew, but later found they were simply wrong about. In this writer's case, the 'fact' that I thought I knew was this: democracy (as it's commonly, if vaguely, understood) is not only the best, but also the most universally desired method of setting the rules for living together whether in a small homogenous group or in a complex and technologically complicated world.

My confusion was, I think, pretty normal. Like many, I was brought up during the dark days of the last century, went to average local schools, wrote uncritical school reports paraphrased from uncritical sources, and was immersed in, and imbued by, the self-righteous nationalistic pride so typical of the era. I had my gripes about how governance was too often arranged and applied, but ultimately had little doubt that, as a conceptual whole, an improved liberal democracy was the unquestionable ideal. Rather than question the ideal, I spent my time speculating on refinements that could achieve a more pleasing reality.

My conviction began to weaken when I was in grad school. I talked occasionally with a fellow student who was raised in another of the many parts of the world. I suggested to him that democracy was some kind of universal aspiration, an arrangement for governance that almost all humans would find both preferable and superior to other forms of governance. He looked at me as if I was quite stupid (correctly, of course) and said, "No, that's not the case."

It seemed incredible to me at the time. I was gobsmacked that anyone could doubt such a basic truism. What of John Rawls and his "veil of ignorance" hypothesis? Yet the seed had been planted and, as I've observed human behavior since then, that seed has grown, sent down deep roots, raised a lush canopy, and I can no longer say that democracy is what humans clearly want.

So what do we want?

Well, 'peace, love, and happiness' might be one way to phrase it. Another way of putting it might be 'morality, respect, and freedom from fear'. Or maybe it should be 'stability, belonging, and easy certainty'. How about just social harmony? Some might argue that it's really having a purpose and meaning in life that's most important. That without meaning, life is empty; that happiness can only be gained by having a reason to live, even at the cost of pain. But in the end, maybe it's simplest to say, 'minimum total pain', whatever the physical, motivational, or emotional sources of pain may be.

Regardless of which words are chosen to symbolize the goal, it seems there are two primary strategies to bettering the human community: morality, a.k.a tradition; and rationality, a.k.a. design. Moralists seem inclined to accept and rely on, in order of importance, taboos, mores, folkways, and, last and very much the least, secular laws. The latter, except ones that seek to directly impose morality, are often dismissed as somewhat counterproductive since they're so commonly corrupted. In other words, moralists adhere to some set of preferred, aka, traditional, values and beliefs, and demand that people individualy take the responsibility to follow and support those values and beliefs as the primary - perhaps only - way to achieve satisfying outcomes. The rationalists, however, flip that viewpoint on its head by placing design and structure first, i.e., laws, followed by folkways, mores, and, last and least, taboos. They argue that a well and properly designed body of law will elicit, without requiring any inhuman achievement of moral purity, seemingly natural and satisfying outcomes.

Uh-oh.

These two narratives are clearly in dire conflict and lead to tactics that seem entirely nonsensical, immoral, even disastrously dangerous, when viewed from the different camps. Of course, there's also the little problem that not all members of either camp agree among themselves about what constitutes the Rightgeous and True solution; that, too, may occasionally lead to some quiet debates. And clearly, there is the third-way camp, which attempts to thread the needle by pursuing both narratives simultaneously, hoping to improve both humans and institutions in unison, but seemingly with little success at either; in the end, it hopes for improved outcomes from both unimproved humans and unimproved institutions.

It's easy to see why democracy is so often rejected when each camp sees the threat of cataclysm in the other camps' approaches. Obviously, if they win - an all too possible consequence of democracy - tragedy will be the result. So the only sure alternative is the other end of the continuum - good ol' autocracy.

It's common to assume, as I once did, that it's absolutely natural to shy madly away from the autocracy end, and to struggle endlessly toward the democracy end. Yet, why? Why take the risk that the Other will gain control and ruin life as it's properly lived? They might even come after me if I refuse to submit to a depraved government. Let's face it, democracy is just too high a risk to bear. A bit of democracy might be fine if everyone is pretty much on the same page and social trust is high (sort of the third camp's hope, dream, and presumption), but how long-lived can that condition ever be? It's a struggle between the comfort of fixed absolutes and the stress of dynamic context. Democracy demands the latter, so it constantly imperils itself and any comfortable status quo. And it always empowers your enemies.

And you want democracy? Are you crazy?

Another facet of the moralist ↔ rationalist, autocracy ↔ democracy, fixed absolutes ↔ dynamic context continuum is inequality ↔ equality. Enthusiastic adherence to moralism disempowers reformers, even when the reformers are a majority of the community. Thus is inequality institutionalized. In other words, democracy is fundamentally and inextricably incompatible with strict moralism.

But if we (whether moralists or rationalists) grant equality, meaning equal power, to others in the name of real democracy, that inevitably means we'll have to put up with, and submit to, their idiocies and perversions. It inevitably means the power to ensure True and Righteous outcomes is curtailed or entirely thwarted. Thus, the existential necessity for our team to win is horrifyingly accentuated, and winning becomes paramount. So really, is democracy - the sharing of power, with the consequent idiocies and perversions - better than attaining and preserving the optimal True and Righteous outcome?

Can there be any question?

Clearly, there are a great many who refuse such craziness. In fact, I have come to realize that belief in democracy runs highest only when the grant of power and freedom to others is effectively at its lowest (i.e., when our team is winning and their team's idiocies and perversions are losing). But when their idiocies and perversions are feared to be in ascendance, that's when the tolerance for democracy is at its lowest.

But, you may argue, the problem is really those people pulling more of their stupid power plays to drive their stupid horror show down our honorable common man throats! So in fact, to save True and Righteous outcomes, they just have to accept what we know is right, because once they do, True and Righteous outcomes will naturally follow, morality and rationality will be served, and they'll finally understand how misled they have been. Dragging them into the superior social structure we want is the logical, and perhaps the only, practicable antidote to their so threatening, ignorant, self-serving, irrational, and immoral selves. Until we achieve the True and the Righteous, we know they will never be anything other than evil, so we can't let some extreme ideal of democracy get in the way of establishing a True and Righteous democracy.

Right.

So is grabbing the win for our team by disenfranchising their team the most likely path toward True and Righteous outcomes, or the most likely path toward idiocies and perversions? The winners will argue the former and call it the sensible route to truly sustainable democracy, the losers will argue the latter and call it a brutal descent into tyranny.

Two things remain clear: as long as there is unequal distribution of power, and therefore unequal freedom, some level of autocracy exists; and under autocracy, power and freedom is in the hands of the autocrats, not in the hands of the general population. Following from that, if some are autocrats, what is the name for the remaining people who have less power and freedom than the autocrats? Obviously, they are the ones who ultimately, one way or another, directly or indirectly, must obey the autocrats, i.e., who must obey and serve the master class. And, hmmm, what's that word for someone who must obey and serve a master?

Naturally, the demand for obedience has degrees of severity and cruelty, depending on the skill of the master and the fearful and dependent nature of the slave. Under the most sophisticated and cleverest masters, most slaves are convinced they are not slaves at all - the lash touches gently and subtly - and the masters themselves deny - are even unaware of - their mastery. But the pattern remains: Puritanical theocrats know they are saving for all time the souls of the people they command - and the submissive believers rejoice while the skeptics feel the lash. The philosopher king knows his enlightened views are True and Righteous and will make his subjects happy beyond their wildest dreams so long as they conform and obey - and the uncritical sycophants rejoice while the non-conformists are rounded up for re-education. The captains of industry, working together with duly elected popular leaders, know they are looking out for the welfare of the citizenry so long as that citizenry shows up for work on time and productivity remains high - and the desperate working classes rejoice while the unemployed are thrown under the bus.

Yup. Democracy is a fine thing. Well, so long as I'm on the team that's winning and it promises to take care of me. So long as I think I'm free. So long as I'm not scared out of my pants by them, and so long as they are appropriately submissive to my team's beliefs and values.

What do you think?

In all the above, the autocracy-democracy continuum has been presented as if it is almost entirely a political issue. It would be just as appropriate to describe that continuum's end points as monopoly and community. Just as autocracy and monopolism are merely the front and rear ends of the same elephant, democracy and community are the front and rear ends of the same donkey. The point is, concentrated wealth is concentrated power, and deconcentrated wealth is deconcentrated power. There is no way to extract politics from economics, or economics from politics - the Venn diagram overlap is 100%.

Ultimately, concentrated wealth and democracy are incompatible. Yet contrary to the often professed and hotly defended belief in democracy, the dream, hope, and fantasy of becoming extraordinarily wealthy, by hook, crook, or luck, is still dearly held. So there remain many who are more than willing to suffer autocratic and economic abuse to retain the desperate chance, no matter how ridiculously remote, that one day they, too, might rise up through the ranks to become a powerful plutocrat, or even the plutocrat. True, there are also many for whom those particular dreams hold little allure. But even among that group, there are not a few who believe that a securely comfortable level of protection against the Other and the uncertainties of life can only be granted through the protections provided by a Great Man, through a lifetime of devoted service to the established order, to the rich and powerful, to the wise men on top. A realized democracy, however, will make all these dreams untenable for everyone.

Me? Despite my doubts, I still hold that people would prefer equality if they thought it realizable. Of course, existential threats, real or imagined, will cause some, perhaps many, to latch onto a Big Daddy who promises both protection from uncertainty and a comforting talismanic narrative to live by. They'll do so even if, perhap because, the price demanded is unquestioning subservience to the Big Daddy team. Others will be eager to attempt climbing the greasy pole of power, always seeking to amass more influence. Yet both of these tactics would perhaps be strongly diminished if people could assuredly feel reasonably safe, certain, and respected. Given that assurance, I still feel hope that equality would actually be seen as the happier option.

So I suggest that what most people really want is safety, respect, and smooth continuity. If some believe inequality is the only sure way to provide themselves with those fundamental needs, they'll happily enslave and kill both themselves and others in support of even the vilest of autocratic systems:

unto us a son is given, and the
government shall be upon His shoulder;
and His name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, the mighty God,
the Everlasting Father

Okaaay... So how's that worked out so far?

But what if there's actually a better way? What if real equality can actually provide more safety, more respect, and more continuity - and do so convincingly? What if there's a better alternative to servile dependence on a Great Man and vain hopes of eventual reward? What if a better way could be pretty easily achieved? If so, is it worth a try?