Various events can make us believe that liberal democracy is in crisis, from the rise of authoritarian leaderships that appeal to the unfulfilled demands of the citizenry, to the estrangement of the masses from the res publica. Upon closer examination, many topics are intertwined. The estrangement of citizens from the public space is fundamental. The ideas, interests, and demands of the citizenry are ideally channeled through political parties, which could lead -and certainly, in many cases led- populists to power who reject the establishment.
Colin Crouch characterized the period that began in the 1970s as “post-democracy.” In this, political parties give way to elites that reproduce internally and are guided by surveys and professional advisors, funded by networks of companies, in pursuit of reaching the largest number of voters possible. This ideological vacuity entails a departure from the base, leaving the masses, their concerns, and interests -whether beneficial to themselves or not- in the hands of technocrats. The crisis of the parties would generate, due to the inertia of democracy itself, non-democratic alternatives. However, viewed from an elitist theory of democracy, such as that of Joseph Schumpeter, the crisis is not real, since, unless there is competition and alternation among the elites in government, democracy fulfills its only function: to be an elective mechanism for elites.
Under the “Schumpeterian” assumptions of elitist democracy, we would not be facing a crisis of liberal democracy since the mechanisms that allow for the variation of elites, more or less frequently, remain in place, even in the presence of populist discourses. It can be observed, then, that the existence or not of a crisis in liberal democracy will depend on the democratic theory through which reality is examined and whether it considers the presence, or not, of a common good.
In the last decades of the 20th century, political parties lost their mobilizing imprint that they once had during their “golden age.” Parties articulated the political life of the individual, grouping them into ideological collectives with some differentiation between them, and representing them in the State, simultaneously generating feelings of belonging to an aspirational common good. This characterization of the ideal party democracy stems from the existence of a common good that democracy would have the duty and capacity to find; we can recall phrases like "with democracy, one eats, is healed, and is educated." If the crisis of the parties is raised, then a crisis in democracy itself would be posed, given that preferences would be channeled through less democratic or even authoritarian alternatives. In the 1970s, both political parties and the world at large underwent changes, marking the beginning of the “post-democratic” period according to Crouch. Parties would have abandoned their ideals and characteristic elements, such as grassroots mobilization and a particular ideology, resulting in the homogeneity of parties, whose practical proposals were similar and were crafted through experts increasingly guided by surveys and with the support of private firms, whose financial contributions sought to be reciprocated with the party in power.
Extremist parties that rejected the liberal institutions of the West, such as communist parties, began to lose appeal. The centrist trend covered the electoral scene, as they could attract more possible voters, in addition to their base. Joseph Overton's ideas regarding the average politician's condition as a "mere follower" of major public opinion trends make sense in this institutional trend. Furthermore, policies were affected by hyper-globalization, as Dani Rodrik suggests, functioning as a “force vest” for national sovereignty. Supranational institutions condition possible democratic decisions, ultimately undermining the sovereign power of the State over its territory, mainly in economic policy.
The traditional mechanisms and institutions of democracy remained in place: free elections, freedom of thought, alternation and competition for power, etc. However, public policies generated by the State would have begun to distance themselves from the preferences of the masses, in favor of policies oriented towards maximizing benefits for political and economic elites. Additionally, administrations increased their operational complexity, making the presence of technocrats imperative, who craft public policies with specialized knowledge, diagnosing problems and responses. The result was a decline in party affiliation, as well as general participation in elections, demonstrating the loss of collective identities and social atomism according to Peter Mair. The resurgence in recent years of right-wing populisms in Europe -not counting authoritarian left regimes in Latin America- would signify a break from the “post-democratic consensus” and a shift towards an even less democratic alternative, due to the lack of institutions that, through civil participation, can express preferences and wield power, in addition to containing it.
However, if we analyze reality through Schumpeter's theory of democracy, we can affirm that there is no crisis. If we do not consider the presence of the common good as something existing and achievable by democracy, the phenomena of “post democracy” and the presence of populist alternatives are not a problem since there are mechanisms that ensure competition among elites. Thanks to the ease of movement of productive factors in globalization, societies have grown in complexity. This means that various conceptions of the common good coexist and compete; therefore, the imposition of one would involve the subjugation of the others, transforming them into means to an end. Eliminating the common good and the general will from democratic theory leaves it as an instrument for voters to choose the elites that will govern them every so often, understanding better than they do their interests. Political parties under this theory are far from being platforms of ideas; they instead operate under the logic of a private business; they are platforms to win elections, providing electoral market elements to persuade individuals, such as propaganda, promises, slogans, etc. This is why there would be homogeneous traits in political parties.
According to Schumpeter, the voter, due to their irrationality in the public sphere, should only participate in politics at election time to choose the elite with its technocratic apparatus. These will enact policies guided by a single self-interest: re-election. Authors like Pateman, Gutmann, and Thompson, who attributed intrinsic value to democracy and stated that there exists a common good attainable through participation and deliberation, would criticize this element. This lack of participation, for elitist theories, safeguards individual freedom because the results from participation would yield irrational and negative outcomes for voters, who possess diminished epistemic capacities in the public sphere. Furthermore, the competition among elites would guarantee other forms of modern freedom such as freedom of the press, political freedom, or freedom of movement. However, an imperative condition is that elites are restrained and limited in their possibilities to affect individuals and the political system. This containment rests on controlling the issues at hand, such as constitutional restrictions on property, liberty, and other basic rights; themes that various supranational institutions like the UN reaffirm in binding international treaties. Additionally, authors such as Jason Brennan limit the sphere of action of the state to constrained areas, allowing civil society to take over in cases where it is more efficient, including areas where the state lacks necessary information, which other methods, like the market, can provide. Thus, this external subjugation and limitation of local politics would be the key condition for the proper functioning of the system.
Populisms from this perspective would not represent an anti-democratic solution since, ultimately, they are just one more alternative in electoral competition, and their antiliberal, antipluralist, and intolerant discourse would only represent the introduction into the electoral market of an “electoral goods package” by a party and a member of the elite. Their rise to power would be completely valid. However, there exists the possibility, according to Nadia Urbinati, that populism may lead to regime change, establishing authoritarianism by modifying the constitution and denying the electoral competition of elites. This could occur not only with a populist leader but with any government, regardless of its discourse, as long as breaking with institutionalism generates more benefits than costs.
In conclusion, the positive and negative aspects of social reality will depend on the theoretical foundations of the democratic theory being used. The depoliticization of individual life, the loss of collective identities, low participation, the external subjugation of local politics, the technocratic government, and self-composed elites that look out for their particular interest, as well as populism and its illiberal characteristics, under a theory like Schumpeter's, are normal and even beneficial, as long as the institutions that ensure competition and the alternation of elites endure. However, under a democratic theory that asserts the existence of a common good and claims that democracy must and has the capacity to form active collective identities, such elements will be viewed negatively. It is for this reason that even elitist measures to contain the masses in the democratic game might lead to illiberal solutions; a fair balance between popular participation and technocratic measures is necessary. For this, it would be optimal to analyze a part of the State that is often overlooked: the bureaucracy, but that is a topic for another day.
Bibliography:
Brennan, Jason. Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? 2022.
Crouch. Post-Democracy. 2004.
Mair, Peter. Ruling the Void. 2013.
Milanovic, Branko. Capitalism Alone. 2021.
Rodrik, Dani. La paradoja de la globalización. 2012.
Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalismo, Socialismo y Democracia. Madrid, 1942.
Urbinati, Nadia. Democracy Disfigured. 2014.
Comments