Is Liberal Democracy Sliding into Democratic Despotism? by Adrian Pabst (2016)

Kent Academic Repository

Pabst, Adrian (2016) Is Liberal Democracy Sliding into 'Democratic Despotism'?

The Political Quarterly, 87 (1). pp. 91-95. ISSN 1467-923X.

Downloaded from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/51548/ The University of Kent's Academic Repository KAR

The version of record is available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12209

This document version

Publisher pdf

DOI for this version

Licence for this version

UNSPECIFIED

Additional information

Versions of research works

Versions of Record

If this version is the version of record, it is the same as the published version available on the publisher's web site. Cite as the published version.

Author Accepted Manuscripts

If this document is identified as the Author Accepted Manuscript it is the version after peer review but before type setting, copy editing or publisher branding. Cite as Surname, Initial. (Year) 'Title of article'. To be published in Title of Journal , Volume and issue numbers [peer-reviewed accepted version]. Available at: DOI or URL (Accessed: date).

Enquiries

If you have questions about this document contact ResearchSupport@kent.ac.uk Please include the URL of the record in KAR. If you believe that your, or a third party's rights have been compromised through this document please see our Take Down policy (available from https://www.kent.ac.uk/guides/kar-the-kent-academic-repository#policies).

IsLiberalDemocracySlidinginto ‘Democratic Despotism’?

ADRIANPABST

Abstract

Post-democracyandcognateconceptssuggestthatthepostwarperiodofdemocratisation hasgivenwaytoaconcentrationofpowerinthehandsofsmallgroupsthatareunrepresentativeandunaccountable,asexemplifiedbytheriseofmultinationalcorporationsandtheir influenceondemocraticpolitics.Thisarticlegoesfurthertoarguethatthisdoesnotfully capturethetriplethreatfacingliberaldemocracy: first,theriseofanewoligarchythat strengthensexecutivepowerattheexpenseofparliamentandpeople;second,theresurgence ofpopulismanddemagogylinkedtoabacklashagainsttechnocraticruleandprocedural politics;third,theemergenceofanarchyassociatedwiththeatomisationofsocietyanda weakeningofsocialtiesandcivicbonds.Inconsequence,liberaldemocracyrisksslidinginto aformof ‘democraticdespotism’ thatmaintainstheillusionoffreechoicewhileinstillinga senseof ‘voluntaryservitude’ asconceptualisedbyTocqueville.

Keywords:liberaldemocracy,oligarchy,demagogy,anarchy, ‘mixedgovernment’

Introduction

SINCE theadventofneoliberalisminthelate 1970s,Westerndemocracieshavewitnessed adeclineinpopularpoliticalparticipation andthegrowinginfluenceofmultinational corporations.TheoristssuchasColinCrouch, SheldonWolinandPeterMairconceptualise thisdevelopmentintermsof ‘post-democracy ’,thespectreof ‘invertedtotalitarianism’ orthe ‘hollowingout’ ofdemocraticpolitics.1 Connectingtheseconceptsistheargument thatthepostwarperiodofdemocratisation hasgivenwaytoaconcentrationofpower inthehandsofsmallgroupsthatareunrepresentativeandunaccountable,asexemplifiedbythenexusbetweenglobal firmsand nationalgovernments.

Thisarticlecontendsthatthethesisof post-democracydoesnotfullycapturethe triplethreatfacingliberaldemocracy: first, theriseofanewoligarchythatstrengthens executivepowerattheexpenseofparliament andpeople;second,theresurgenceofpopulismanddemagogylinkedtoabacklash againsttechnocraticruleandproceduralpolitics;third,theemergenceofanarchyassoci-

atedwiththeatomisationofsocietyanda weakeningofsocialtiesandcivicbonds.In consequence,liberaldemocracyriskssliding intoaformof ‘democraticdespotism’ that maintainstheillusionoffreechoicewhile instillingasenseof ‘voluntaryservitude’ as conceptualisedbyTocqueville.

Theargumentisnotthatdemocracyis becomingthesameasdictatorship,but ratherthatliberaldemocracymutatesinto novelformsofilliberalauthoritarianism.A newoligarchyseekstocentralisepower,concentratewealthandmanipulatepublicopinionbyusingmediaspin,closingdown debateandironingoutplurality.Theiraim istoentrenchasystemtowhichthereis supposedlynoalternative.Thustheprocess wherebydemocraticrulebecomesdebased andeven ‘despotic’ encompassesaseriesof mutationswithindemocracyitself.Among others,theseincludeelectedrepresentatives andgovernmentsthatactasaninterested, self-servingparty;acorporatecaptureofthe state;acollectivedemobilisationofthecitizenry;acultofabstractequality;andempty freedomandtheconceitthattheWest’ s democraticsystemistheonlyvalidmodel.

Anewoligarchy?

Establishedliberaldemocraciesasdiverseas theUSA,theUK,ItalyandFrancearecurrentlycharacterisedbyacrisisofrepresentation.Publictrustinpoliticalinstitutionsis fallingsharply,especiallyinmainstream politicalpartiesthathavemorphedfrom massmovementsintosmallelite-dominated organisations(asDommettdiscusseselsewhereinthisissue).Facedwithinsurgent populistmovements,partyestablishments areperceivedtodefendtheirownselfinterestandtheinterestsoftheirdonors ratherthantheirvoters.Thecollapseinparty membership,coupledwithalong-term declineinvoterturnout,suggeststhat betweenelections,popularinfluenceongoverningelitesisminimal.2 Moreover,growing numbersofelectedrepresentativesare professionalpoliticiansfromevernarrower socio-economicbackgroundswhoareseenas neitherconnectingwithordinaryvoters,nor governingintheinterestofthemajority,nor addressingthelong-termneedsofsociety.

Thissuggestsadriftofliberaldemocracy towardeffectiveoligarchy,whichismanifest inthetendencyofdemocraticrepresentatives tocomposeaninterestedpartyinitself.Typically,politicalpartiesingovernmenttendto actonissuesthatconcerntheirownfactional support,orelseissuesthatconcernthefactionalsupportoftheiropponents,whichthey mayaddressinordertooutflankthem.But governingpartiesproverelativelyimpotent whenitcomestomattersthataffectthe wholeofnationalorinternationalsociety, suchasthemigrationcrisis,environmental degradation,poverty,infrastructuralinvestmentorreformingcartelcapitalism.Thisis because,eventhoughtheneglectofsuch issuesisdetrimentaltoeachandeveryone, theyarerarelythemostimmediateandpressingconcernofpowerfulgroupswithavested interest.Individuallyandcollectively,citizens arethereforesubjectto ‘thetyrannyofsmall choices’,aswhenweopttoshopinachain storeforconvenienceorcheapness,even thoughwedonotreallydesiretolosecorner shopsandsuffertheconsequentdeclineof localprosperity,solidarityandcommunity thatthisoftenentails.Paradoxically,the sustainingofabalanceofoligarchicinterests byrepresentativegovernmentforostensibly

democraticreasonsrendersincreasinglydifficulttheactiverepresentationofthemanifest consensual ‘generalwill’ ofthepeopleasa whole.

Theriseofanewoligarchyisnotconfined torulingpartiesbutextendstotheentire executive.Liberaldemocracyischaracterised bytheexponentialgrowthofexecutivelegislation(oftenrubber-stampedbyaparliamentarymajoritybeholdentoexecutivewrit) andthegrowingpowerofthejudiciaryrelativetothelegislature.Moreover,anew supranationalclassofjudgesseemsunable toresistthetemptationeithertoaggrandise itsjurisdictionalpowerortoassisttheexecutiveinimposinguniformlaws.Andwhere theactionofjudgesprovidesacheckon inflatedgovernmentalpower,itcanunwittinglyfosteralitigiousculturethatprivileges thepowerfulandwealthywhileunderminingequalaccesstojustice.

Thelackofaccountabilityandpopular participationiscompoundedbyaprocessof ‘self-corruption’ wherebyanelectedexecutiveclaimsthelegitimateauthoritytoexceed itsownmandateinthefaceofcircumstances whichcouldnotbeanticipatedbythatmandateandwhichtheelectoratecannotvote on.Recentexamplesincludecounter-terrorist legislationafter9/11andthebailoutofboth banksandstates.Ineachcasegovernments actpredominantlyintheinterestofsmall groups,suchasthesecurityservices,institutionalinvestorsandglobalbondmarkets. Arguably,thisrepresentsanoligarchic defenceofthebasesofoligarchiccontrol whetheranemergencyresponsetoathreat oranopportunitytoextendpower(orboth atonce).Eitherway,liberaldemocracyis compatiblewithanoligarchythatgoeswell beyondthepowerofglobal firms thefocus ofthepost-democracythesis.

Thisoligarchytakestheformof ‘oldelites’ and ‘newclasses’ . 3 Theformerincludepoliticaldynastiesandcaptainsofindustry,while thelatterencompassnetworkssuchasthe ‘techoligarchy’ inSiliconValley,theadvocatesof ‘capitalistphilanthropy’ andan arrayoftechnocratsingovernments includinganewmanagerialarmadaofaccountants andauditors.Both ‘oldelites’ and ‘ new classes’ usetheproceduresofrepresentative democracytoincreasetheirpower,wealth andsocialstatus.Inthisprocess,anunrepre-

sentativeexecutive togetherwithagrowing moneyedplutocracyandanoverweening judiciary oftendisregardthemoreinformal manifestationsofcitizens’ interests.

Anewdemagogy?

Democraciesfacethepermanentthreatof illiberal,populistforcesthatseektodestroy individuallibertiesparadoxicallyinthe nameoffreespeech(asinthecaseoffarrightracistgroupsorreligiousfundamentalists).However,liberaldemocracyitselfcan beacatalystforpopulismanddemagogy. Firstofall,thereisthetensionbetweensubstantivevaluesandproceduralstandards.A keydilemmafacinganydemocraticsystem isthatitconstantlyneedstobalancetwo competingdemands:respectingmajoritywill andcommandingpopularassentontheone hand,whileprotectingindividualsand minoritiesfromoppressionontheother.To doso,democracieshavehistoricallytended tocombinecertainfoundationalvalues(such asliberty,equalityandfraternityinFrance, orlife,libertyandthepursuitofhappiness intheUS)withformalrulesandprocedures. Theproblemisthatwhenrivalvaluesclash (sayindividualfreedomandequalityforall), contemporaryliberalismsuggeststhatpeople canonly ‘agreetodisagree’ andsettlefor abstract,formalstandardssuchas ‘negative liberty’ (theabsenceofconstraintsonthe individualexceptthelawandprivateconscience).4 Takentoitslogicalconclusion,the principleof ‘negativeliberty’ impliesthatliberaldemocracyshouldpromotemaximal freedomofchoiceoveranysharedsubstantiveendssuchasthecommongood.This occursregardlessofwhethersuchaconceptionoflibertyunderminesOrwell’ s ‘ common decency’,thatistosay,thequestformutual recognitionmorethanfortotalequalityor emancipation.Inthismanner,theliberal privilegingofimpartialstandardsmay amounttotheimpositionofpreferencesthat donotcommandpopularconsentandthus cannotbedescribedasgenuinelydemocratic.

Second,therelativeliberalindifferenceto substantivevaluescanleadtoasituation wherethetendencytoexploitfearand manipulateopinionbecomesanendemic featureofrepresentativedemocracy.Liberal politicsoftenrevolvesaroundsupposedly

guardingagainstalienelements:theterrorist, therefugee,theforeigner,thewelfare-scroungerandthosedeemeddeficientin ‘ entrepreneurship’.Inconsequence,apurported defenceofdemocracyisitselfdeployedtojustifythesuspendingofdemocraticdecisionmakingandcivilliberties,aswithpost-9/11 counter-terroristlegislationthatsuspended coreconstitutionalprovisionsandvaluesof liberality:fairdetention,fairtrial,righttoa defence,assumedinnocence, habeascorpus, goodtreatmentoftheconvicted,andameasureoffreespeechandfreeenquiry.5 Declaringastateofemergencyisaconstitutive characteristicofmodernstates,andliberal democraciesarenodifferentwhenitcomesto makingexceptionalpowerspermanent.

Democraciescanalsomanipulateopinion, andpopulismseemstobeaninevitableconsequenceofthedemocraticprimacyofprocedureoversubstance.Evergreateruseof techniquesderivedfromPRandtheadvertisingindustryreinforcesdemocracy’stendencytowardsdemagogy.The ‘culture’ of spin,mediastunts,focusgroupsandseeminglyendlesselectoralcampaignshasturned politicsintoaspectacleofgeneralmass opinionthatcanbedescribedasaformof manipulativepopulism,promisingever greaterfreedomofchoice,but ‘theconditions underwhichchoicesaremadearenotthemselvesamatterofchoice’ . 6 Inresponsetothe manipulativepopulismoftherulingelites, Westerndemocracieswitnesstheperiodic emergenceofanti-elitepopulismbyinsurgentmovementssuchastheTeaPartyinthe US,FrontNationalinFrance,ortheUK IndependencePartyinBritain.

Norcanthissimplybedismissedasa new,temporaryandephemeralthreatto democracy.Inthe1830s,AlexisdeTocquevillewarnedthatAmericawasthefreest societyonearth,where,paradoxically,there wasleastofallpublicdebateandmostofall anewformof ‘tyranny’ ofsocialconformism tomajoritytastesandpreferences.InWesterndemocraciestoday,apparentlyeverythingcanbedebatedpublicly(includingthe personal,privatesphere)exceptthepotential dangersofliberaldemocracyitself.Hereit couldbevalidlyobjectedthatthereare numeroussafeguards,includingamore effectiveseparationofpowers, firmly entrenchedruleoflaw,greaterindividual

rightsandfreedomsaswellasmoreequality.However,contemporarydemocracyis oftenpronetodeployingspectacleandsubtleformsofpropaganda.Ofcourse,thisis notthesameasindictatorialregimes.Comparedwithtwentieth-centurytotalitarian rule,democraticpoliticswieldsmoreindirect power,workingthroughinfluenceonpeople’smindsandmoreeffectivelysecuring controlviauniformtastesandopinionsthan doesanextrinsicimpositionofforce.

Butdonotthefreepressandtheinternet guardagainstthissupposedslideintodemagogy?Whiletheparticipatorypotentialof socialmediafordemocracyisrealandsignificant,theexpansionofnewtechnological capabilitiescanexacerbatethetendencyto algorithmicself-regulationandsimultaneous opennesstobothsurveillanceandremote manipulation.7 Evenmoresothanthereal world,thevirtualcyberspacelacksarobust andreadilyimplementableethosofself-disciplineandreciprocalpractice.Forthisreason,ittendstofavour fleetingtastesanda self-referentialculturethatlendsitselftothe sortofmasssurveillanceillustratedbythe NSAspyingscandal(democracyhascertainlyhelpedtouncovertheextentofsystematicsnooping,butisitsuccessfulin rollingitbackandreinstatingcivilliberties?). Thustheexponentialexpansionoftheinternetwithindemocraticdiscourseprovides opportunitiesforfreeself-expressionand greaterscrutinyaswellassocialcontroland demagogicpolitics.

Anewanarchy?

Contemporaryliberaldemocracyhas broughtaboutgreaterfreedomsandopportunitiesbyextendingindividualrightsand byreplacinginheritedstatuswithnatural equalitybeforethelaw.Thereismuchgain involvedbutalsoloss,notablytheprogressiveerosionofthesocialbondsandcivicties onwhichvibrantdemocraciesandmarket economiesdependfortrustandcooperation. Democraticpoliticsfostersgreaterequalityof opportunityandhighersocialmobilitybut bythesametokenitseemslinkedtofragmentationanddissolution.Paradoxically, democracy especiallyundertheinfluence ofneoliberalcapitalism canengendersocietiesthataresimultaneouslymoreatomised

andmoreinterdependent: ‘inourpubliclife wearemoreentangled,butlessattached, thaneverbefore’ 8

Morefundamentally,differentmodelsof liberaldemocracytendtooscillatebetween thesovereignpoweroftheexecutiveandthe sovereignpowerofcitizens qua freelychoosingindividualswhoareremovedfromthe constraintsofinterpersonalrelationsandwho entertainpredominantlycontractualtieswith oneanother.Theproblemisthatthishasthe effectofundermininghumanassociationand thepoliticalroleofvoluntary,democratically self-governingintermediaryinstitutionssuch asprofessionalassociations,tradeunionsor universities.Withoutthemediatingfunction ofintermediaryinstitutions,democracyrisks slidingintoananarchyofcompetingindividualswhopursuetheirownself-interest withoutregardforreciprocalrecognitionand mutualbenefit.Theensuingconflictis eitherregulatedbythe ‘invisiblehand’ ofthe marketorpolicedbythe ‘visiblehand’ of thestate(oragainbothatonce).Thereal alternativeisnotjustgreaterdemocratic representationbutalsoastrongerelementof participatoryandassociativedemocracyat theregionalandlocallevels.

Inthe finalinstance,theprimacyofthe stateandthemarketoverhumanassociation canleadtoademocraticsystemthatinstilsa senseof ‘voluntaryservitude’ aformof subtlemanipulationbyostensibleconsent wherebypeoplesubjectthemselvesfreelyto thewilloftherulingoligarchy.Theinstitutionsofthecentraladministrativestateand global ‘freemarket’ regulatethe ‘naturally given’ (butinrealitymerelyassumed)anarchy,whichisexacerbatedbythelackof associativeties.PierreManentputsthiswell: ‘democraticmanisthefreestmantohave everlivedandatthesametimethemost domesticated[...]hecanonlybegranted,he canonlygivehimself,somuchliberty becauseheissodomesticated’ 9

AsTocquevilleanticipated,liberaldemocraciesthatprivilegemassopinionand self-interestedrepresentativesattheexpense ofeducationintovirtueandbondsof associationcanproduceformsoftutelary power:

[...]thesupremepowerthenextendsitsarm overthewholecommunity.Itcoversthesur-

faceofsocietywithanetworkofsmallcomplicatedrules,minuteanduniform,through whichthemostoriginalmindsandthemost energeticcharacterscannotpenetrate,torise abovethecrowd.Thewillofmanisnot shattered,butsoftened,bent,andguided; menareseldomforcedbyittoact,butthey areconstantlyrestrainedfromacting.Sucha powerdoesnotdestroy,butitpreventsexistence;itdoesnottyrannise,butitcompresses,enervates,extinguishes,and stupefiesapeople,tilleachnationisreduced tonothingbetterthana flockoftimidand industriousanimals,ofwhichthegovernmentistheshepherd.[ ]servitudeofthe regular,quiet,andgentlekind[ ]mightbe combinedmoreeasilythaniscommonly believedwithsomeoftheoutwardformsof freedom,andthatitmightevenestablish itselfunderthewingofthesovereigntyof thepeople.10

Concludingreflections

Liberaldemocracyhasananti-democratic dimensionandthuscontainstheseedsofits ownerosionanditsslideintooligarchy, demagogyandanarchy.Ifso,thendemocraciesrequirenotonlynon-democraticelementssuchastheruleoflaw(aprincipleon whichwedonotvote)butalsoagreaterrole fornon-formalisable,non-legaljudgementon whatisgoodandrightforsocietyasa whole.Thatinturninvolvesasenseof sharedmoresand ‘commondecency’,which istosayasharedhorizonofcommonpurpose.Ultimately,democracyneedsabalance oftheconsentof ‘themany’ withtheadvice of ‘thefew’ (howeverconstituted)andthe executivedecisionsof ‘theone’.Normally, thelatterhastobeinsomefashionembodiedinoneperson,asitstillistodaythroughouttheworld,inthemodeofpresidential andprimeministerialfunctions.More ‘mixed

government’,notmoreliberalism,iskeyto safeguardingandstrengtheningdemocracy.

Notes

1C.Crouch, Post-Democracy,Cambridge,Polity Press,2004;S.S.Wolin, DemocracyIncorporated: ManagedDemocracyandtheSpecterofInverted Totalitarianism,Princeton,NJ,PrincetonUniversityPress,2008;P.Mair, RulingtheVoid:The Hollowing-outofWesternDemocracy,London, Verso,2013.

2A.Barnett, ‘Corporatepopulismandpartyless democracy’ , NewLeftReview,Vol.3,2000,pp. 80–9;R.J.DaltonandM.P.Wattenberg(eds), PartiesWithoutPartisans:PoliticalChangein AdvancedIndustrialDemocracies,Oxford,Oxford UniversityPressWattenberg,2002.

3C.Lash, TheRevoltoftheElitesandtheBetrayal ofDemocracy,NewYork,W.W.Norton&Co., 1995;P.Piccone, ConfrontingtheCrisis The WritingsofPaulPiccone,NewYork,Telos,2008.

4I.Berlin, ‘Twoconceptsofliberty’,in Four EssaysonLiberty,Oxford,OxfordUniversity Press,1969,pp.118–72.

5G.Agamben, StateofException,tr.K.Attell, Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress,2005,pp. 1–40.

6Z.Bauman, DoesEthicsHaveaChanceina WorldofConsumers?,Cambridge,MA,Harvard UniversityPress,2008,p.72.

7E.Morozov, TheNetDelusion:TheDarkSideof InternetFreedom,London,AllenLane,2011; To SaveEverything,ClickHere:Technology,SolutionismandtheUrgetoFixProblemsthatDon’tExist, London,Penguin,2014;J.Bartlett, TheDark Net:InsidetheDigitalUnderworld,London,WilliamHeinemann,2014.

8M.J.Sandel, ‘Theproceduralrepublicandthe unencumberedself’ , PoliticalTheory,vol.12, no.1,1984,p.94.

9P.Manent, TheCityofMan,tr.M.LePain, Princeton,NJ,PrincetonUniversityPress,1998, p.181.

10A.deTocqueville, DemocracyinAmerica,tr.G. Lawrence,NewYork,Doubleday,1969,p.650.