I guess your title is inspired by E M Forster’s short story of the same name? If so, it’s an appropriate analogy.
The French anthropologist Emmanuel Todd has (slightly tongue in cheek) mused that western democracies do not reflect what the people want these days but paradoxically autocracies such as Russia and China might be better at doing so. He has a point.
The UK has avoided the French situation but the electoral set up was not so different. Instead, we have a government that can almost do as it pleases for five years but which only 20% of the eligible voters chose. I am not sure that France is in a worse situation in reality.
Ultimately, the root cause of the mess across the west is fractured societies (with no real common values), almost unprecedented levels of inequality (UK Gini Coefficient circa 35% up from 25% in the mid 70s), stagnant or declining living standards for most people for several decades (despite the hype about GDP) and the loss of independent mass institutions (such as unions, political parties, clubs) that bind society, politics and the governmental system.
My belief is that the west is heading for system collapse and that nothing will fix things in the meantime. The machine is quite simply out of control and nobody is steering it. It is steering itself onto rocks.
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. The technical term for this is a "beard".
Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so.
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Robert Kagan come to mind .
Taking into account how wildly unpopular most western politicians and their policies are with their respective publics, "democracy" as it is practiced is basically a cover for rulers to do what they want.
Democracy is not possible in the current set up as was detailed in this essay any where in the West (the Empire). In the US we have been moving gradually to a one-party state with media, federal bureacracy, industry, oligarchs all supporting that party (Democrats and most elected Republicans). The fly in the ointment for this one party is Trump. If he wins then some version of "democracy" can be revived, if he loses, we will be facing low-level civil-war. This is why most of the institutional forces oppose Trump.
It is not certain that Todd is the only person who has figured out that politics in China and the RF is considerably more participatory than in the West
I would have thought this common and general knowledge
Read the Resolution and the Explanation of the recent CPC Third Plenum to see how this works in practice
Or any of the the many thousands of second level explanations and road maps given by a very broad swathe of commentariats - which provide evidence of how the process en marche
The Western ruling class surpresses democracy in their own countries
Their shut eye ignorance and notions of superiority prevent them from having a clue about political practices, or any other, in the rest of the world
"Sarkozy (2007-12) was a slimy, corrupt provincial lawyer escaped from a Balzac novel, whereas Hollande (2012-17) was a colourless bureaucrat with the charisma of a soggy baguette, and of Macron there is nothing of interest to say at all." Mon Dieu :)))
"One of the most noted features of the British and French elections this year was that the number of seats gained in the parliaments of the two countries had little connection with the percentage of the popular vote, or the balance of public opinion generally. Even the media adjacent to the Professional and Managerial Caste (PMC) and so part of the Outer Party, did at least deign to notice the fact, and even went so far as to accept that most people voted reluctantly, and often against, rather than for, something."
The rulers do not care if the election featured 20% turnout and those who voted were dispirited and only voted against The Other Guy, as long as their orders still are obeyed.
Similarly, it does not matter why a voter votes the way they did, whether they voted out of old habit, genuine enthusiasm, to please a parent or spouse, to vote the other guy out. Their vote counts the same as any other vote.
Anyway, Macron will try to rule by decree, without forming a government. Legal? Probably not, but so what? As long as that is what will keep the War On Russia and the War On Gaza going, nobody will raise a peep, or at least nobody who can do anything about it.
The US Electoral College has been a prime example of this lack of representation in the White House and the gerrymandering evident in the House of Representatives.
1. Need to go back to the creation and purpose of "Democracy"
Hint: Glorious Revolution & French revolution... as the saying goes: Follow the money
2. If "governments" do not control financial and monetary policy, what exactly is it that they govern?
"stability in the Western democracies was based on the millennial Roman recipe – give the poor bread and circuses and they will not revolt – ‘bread’ is already in short supply due to the dual effect of shrinking economies, and a reduced ability to siphon wealth from the Global South.
Political systems, spectator sports and media entertainment, – the modern day circuses – are losing their effectiveness. Significantly, Western masses are starting to catch up with the fact that the route to change purportedly offered by elections only brings more of the same."
"Democracy: Made by the Money Powers for the Money Powers"
Aurelian never fails to provide a new pair spectacles through which to view events unfolding before our eyes. He again reveals an underlying order, a logic, to what often seems to outsiders as random, capricious, or downright illogical.
This was a really excellent essay that toutch some fundamentals indeed!
About Democracy:
"Let’s simply say that a democracy exists when the wishes and wants of the citizens are as far as possible translated into the characteristics and functioning of the society in which they live."
This is almost the verbatim definition provided by the Xi Jinping, President of China and describing PRC.
Corruption:
The Chinese, again, have some experience, and below are some of the Qing Emperor Hongu, who fought corrupted officials tirelesly:
"Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government knew how wicked they were, so everyone said my punishments were harsh, for they saw only the severity of the law and didn’t know that these villains had used the government’s good name to engage in evil practices. In the morning I punished a few and, by evening, others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the punishment, the more violations. I didn’t know what to do, but I couldn’t rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order deteriorated, people thought me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them, others regarded me as a tyrant. How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, my situation was dreadful."
Bureaucracy and civil service, nowadays, is a bit of a sham. Especially when it comes to the management. Few come from the ranks, they go to all kinds of colleges that mint bureaucrats and we know what they study there, nothing with much practicality. But not ethics.
The merit and ethic commissioners are all but toothless. They cannot for instance look into merit complaints of management. And they are such selected that they will never turn against the administration/government/executives and their decisions. Ou sont "les mandarines" d'autre temps...
The Party:
What can I say that Simone Weil had not said better almost 100 years ago in her famous essay:
The executive cannot be left in the hands of most of the present PMC representatives, but haven't yet figured out a way to select / appoint. Romans had the dictator position for exceptional times, and maybe something like that would be needed to create a clean slate and reinvent things: the actual history of political systems is far richer than thought. Aristotle is not tought in schools, but its should (https://indi.ca/the-triangle-of-power/). And the smorgardsboard of political options from the past has been brought to life/light by that somewhat optimistic book, that smashed the TINA principle in a billion of pieces: "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity".
I especially like the present essay because also comes with a silver lining: people will look at other options, outside of what is currently offered. If the hunger and need gets dialed up by exogenous or endogenous events, hoi polloi will show their teeth and claws. And they are multitudes.
Quote: "Romans had the dictator position for exceptional times, and maybe something like that would be needed"
There you have the problem and the solution!
FEEDBACK LOOP:
All systems have a feedback loop to operate satisfactorily:
When a child touches something hot, he gets feedback that this is bad, and avoids it in the future. Similarly for animals and adults. Burnt once in the equities casino, smart people will avoid such investments in the future. The whole concept of machine automation and control systems is having a feedback loop. Take driving for example, you brake when you see a car stopping in front of you. etc.
In democracies the REAL rulers are not the "elected" clowns, however the clowns are presented to the gullible masses as the "rulers/decision makers"
Thus when something goes wrong it is the clowns that are blamed not the rulers. So effectively there is no feedback loop.
In a monarchies, dictatorship, single party rule, etc. if anything goes wrong, the real power is blamed, so there is an effective feedback loop.
Hence the worse of monarchies, dictatorship, single party rule, etc. are inherently better than the "best democracies".
This is why Money Powers created "democracies" they can rule behind a facade of useful idiots.
Yes. The problem with the monarchies, dictatorships, etc, is that once the blame is correctly assigned, there is no legal mechanism to remove those in power, but they have half the problem resolved at least--and if the rulers are wise, they would do what they can to address them. The problem with a lot of "democracies," as you note, is that the other problem is not properly addressed (this, incidentally, is literally what Bagehot said--in the English system, as of 19th century, you know who was responsible because they had all the power, and the electoral process, however imperfect it was, allowed for orderly and legal removal of those responsible from power. The details, as I see it, are not that important, as long as these two general principles are met: who do you blame and, if they deserve it, can you throw them out of power in an orderly and legal fashion?
I want to add that even Machiavelli insisted that "the people" ought not to be insulted or oppressed as a practical matter for the Prince or whoever the rulers are.
However, despite your purported feedback loop, monarchies, dictatorships and single party rule are not responsive to change, except through concerted (and so, difficult to achieve,) action and very often, necessarily, violence.
I think that's a dangerous and misleading idea about "democracy." (see my comment on this thread).
The only workable definition of "democracy" we can have, in my opinion, is that whenever the discontent with the regime reaches a certain threshold, a mechanism exists to throw them out. Since what "the people want" is mathematically and logically impossible to ascertain (it's easy to manipulate the procedures and rules so that more people want something else, no matter what that is.), defining "demoracy" in terms of what people want is at best naive and, at worst, a setup for de facto electoral fraud. Those in power (defined somewhat broadly--I'm including Herr Stamer and his swell gang in this category despite having been the nominally out party in the last government.) can always set themselves up as "at least you don't want THAT" choice and manipulate the rules and procedures if necessary to achieve that. We are seeing variations of that play out in UK, France, and United States already.
Personally, rather than sortition, I'd much rather prefer the other Greek voting system: Ostracism. Whoever that is chosen to be voted out should be banned from holding public office (as a group--so the entire party, not just the leadership.) for a decade at least. Perhaps Ostracism should be held every year, or two years. Maybe that should be followed by another election, perhaps even by sortition. But whatever the means, the first thing should be a surefire means to get rid of the unpopular incumbents (prefably as a collective) for as long as practically possible as frequently as possible.
With Ostracism as you describe it, you would run out of governments very quickly. The solution is not to have such people in power at all = sortition = qualified randomness.
(And despite the authors warning, we have strayed into alternative governance issues).
If Ostracism causes governments to run out quickly, we wouldn't stand a chance with a random selection anyways. I don't trust the dice any more than I do politicians and I don't think I'm alone in this regard.
In the case of the USA, for the first roughly 170 to 190 years of its existence it was thought, in my view correctly, that democracy could not be based solely on just the vote, it also required democratic governance structures. We used to have them in the form of our former decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old, which were fundamentally completely different than today's version of them which are centralized and effectively publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. And for them to function properly they required operating within a semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system so that local forces could engage in public policy at their level. The so called Populist and Progressive Eras (I wrote so called because they were named that long after their facts) are very misunderstood, almost all that occurred in them was one by hundreds of different groups spread out across the country acting independently of each other. Even the New Deal Era is lied about, the 1930s and 1940s and even the 1950s were not the centralized technocratic dictatorships we're taught they were in American schools. It really at some point in the early 1960s (with lots of prep work for it done in the 1950s) the system we have today started to get put into place but for a lot of the really big stuff it wasn't until between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that we took the big leap towards public sector AND private sector centralization (and by then our parties had been transformed already, which I recon was necessary for that leap to occur).
In spite of the rosy picture you paint, the US constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely.
The statement that "the US Constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely" is historically reductive and highly misleading. Yes, many of the Constitution's framers were wealthy landowners, but the document itself was shaped by a wide spectrum of competing interests and compromises aimed at balancing power across different sectors of society and geographic areas. Many of those who formally and in some cases informally framed it were interested in limiting centralized authority and preventing any single group, including themselves, from permanently holding power. The checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights, etc. were designed to distribute power among different branches of government and between the states and the federal government, which inhibited any one faction, including the wealthy elite you referred to, from controlling things permanently indefinitely. Very firm evidence of this can be provided via the verifiable fact that much of the very groups you referred to declined in status with a short number of decades from its creation, in fact the very literal people who made them declined in power, Andrew Jackson's rise alone, which happened in some of their lifetimes, is evidence of their decline/ Also, the democratic structures, such as regular elections and representative government, and while it initially limited many groups ability to fully participate politically, the very framework itself was used to expand suffrage and civil rights over time which contradicts the claim that it was solely about preserving elite control forever.
It should also be noted that, once the elites cheated Jackson out of power in 1824, they could never pull off anything like that--and, to pull that off in the first place, they needed help from Henry Clay, who, himself, was a quasi-Jackson like figure in terms of his background (and thus, Jackson's most hated rival). The idea that rules are written by some kind of privileged people who were already in power, imho, is a straw man logic: rules are, by definition, always written by people who were in positions of influence when they are written. You will not find a set of divine rules falling from sky, except, I suppose, in Exodus. The real question is whether the rules are designed to minimize social upheaval and provide for self-correction when things are getting dangerous. I think one thing that American Founding Fathers deserve credit for is that they were properly worried about social disruptions and upheavals and seriously thought about how to address them via "good governance" (YMMV wrt the definition of "good" governance) (something that they shared with Bismarck and generations of Russian and Chinese rulers--as for the latter, until the dynasts were too accustomed to the system working "right" without maintenance--the Chinese dynastic cycle, I think, runs on this principle: the founders were usually suitably afraid of social disruptions and were eager to work hard towards mitigating discontent proactively, while the later dynasts began to believe that the "laws" operated by themselves as if through magic and they can game them without suffering consequences--and, eventually, they did. This logic applies even to "demoractic" regimes, too, it seems.)
As I see it, a functional "democracy" does, however it does it--by not allowing popular discontent from building up above some level by not even having a pretension of "representation." Any method of selecting government that pretends to "represent" (this includes sortition) whatever is doomed to fail because people cannot agree on what they want and avail themselves to be gamed one way or another--whether that means voters being gamed by "politicians" or the "politicians" being gamed by the "political insiders," or whatever. The only thing you cannot easily gamed, I think, is identifying whoever is most hated and/or distrusted.
Agreed, but much of how the Framers succeeded was through decentralization. Same with China in recent decades, Xi and interest groups around the national center have been trying hard to centralize things, the stuff they just came out with in the 3rd Plenum, if actually enacted, would deeply centralize things there, but from the, I guess mid 1980s, some number of years after 2015 (when Xi came in) they were the most politically and economically decentralized nation (amongst those with functional national centers, I mean) on Earth; and in some of the most key ways, they, despite being a dictatorship, cosmic level ironically more closely resembled the political and economic structures of the USA's Old Republic than contemporary America does. At least for vast nations like China and America, decentralization (sort of like the national government is a weak loose empire) can not only enable far more people to "win" from elections (mainly because of things related to the variability in policy it enables), it also leads to much more "good governance"
So what? These gentry had, in the main, the idea to benefit society and the people who live in their domains. Today, the oligarch class does not care even a little about what happens to the people or the society as a whole. It was clearly laid out in the book <i>The Revolt of the Elites</i> by Christopher Lasch.
He's also just wrong, here's my reply to him: "The statement that "the US Constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely" is historically reductive and highly misleading. Yes, many of the Constitution's framers were wealthy landowners, but the document itself was shaped by a wide spectrum of competing interests and compromises aimed at balancing power across different sectors of society and geographic areas. Many of those who formally and in some cases informally framed it were interested in limiting centralized authority and preventing any single group, including themselves, from permanently holding power. The checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights, etc. were designed to distribute power among different branches of government and between the states and the federal government, which inhibited any one faction, including the wealthy elite you referred to, from controlling things permanently indefinitely. Very firm evidence of this can be provided via the verifiable fact that much of the very groups you referred to declined in status with a short number of decades from its creation, in fact the very literal people who made them declined in power, Andrew Jackson's rise alone, which happened in some of their lifetimes, is evidence of their decline/ Also, the democratic structures, such as regular elections and representative government, and while it initially limited many groups ability to fully participate politically, the very framework itself was used to expand suffrage and civil rights over time which contradicts the claim that it was solely about preserving elite control forever. "
Also, I used to be a fan of Lasch, still kinda am, but I've come across reason to believe he was just bulls**ting
The world's leading democracy is Switzerland's, whose participatory politics are probably impractical for larger, diverse countries. But hard on its heels, and ahead of #3 Singapore, is China, which ticks all the boxes–from 32 constitutional guarantees of democracy (the US Constitution does not mention democracy because the Founders hated it) to its outcomes, which please 80% of Chinese (20% in the USA) and whose overall directions pleases 96% of them. Even when asked directly if they have enough democracy, 75% say 'yes,' compared to 35% of Americans.
In time, this will become widely known but, for now, must go unnoticed.
I appreciate your writings and wish that you up the unpaid content, substack et al have cloven to US style payment systems which the RoW, well the sub saharan part, can not easily access
Have you lived in Switzerland - the democracy bit is not untrue, but most other aspects of that society are exclusionary, severely racist, and narrow minded
Still there's hope for them yet as they appear to be being sucked into the EU by default, and adopting the divide and rule of EU identity politics (as all other) as a substitute for their own, so exchanging their home grown form of ignorance for the identical imported
All the traditional “ideologies” are now obsolete. There is no more “left” or “right”. It’s all grayish mass of the same slime. No values, no moral, no virtues, nothing. Long time ago, accomplished people of all professions would have started to do politics and try to use their lifelong experience to make the society better. Now, a politician is an occupation. It’s their first and only job. F….. misery.
>>I’ve become convinced, in fact, that with the machine seizing up as it has, those who make a populism of the Left impossible will make a populism of the Right inevitable.
For the last four or five years I've been trying to say this to anyone who cares to listen, but perhaps next time I'll steal your elegant phrasing.
One fundamental problem (which you elude to) is that the idea of what "democracy" means is poorly understood by too many people, in a way that people decades ago could see. One book that I like to point to is Charles Lindblom's book "Intelligence of Demcoracy." The idea, ultimately, comes down to how a more democratic government has a built-in safety valve, that a really incompetent and out of touch government that cannot meet the wishes of the large swaths of people cannot stay in power so that the workings of a "democracy" prevents popular discontent from buliding up to unhealthy levels. This, in turn, is really an adaptation of the idea attributed to Walter Bagehot from 19th century.
This holistic idea of what democracy might ultimately achieve has, however, been lost. Instead, people think in terms of "representation" (edit: or, what I consider to be a misconceived notion thereof) all too often, that what it is that "the people" want can be measured, even with some form of mathematical precision, and the government ought to accomplish them. (edit: this is, in the end, the idea behind a "mandate": the people "chose" us, we have a set of programs that we want to pursue, therefore we have the prerogative to do what we want to do. In fact, people chose against "the guys who used to be in power," not "you," let alone your agenda. So your task should be to figure out what it is that about the other guys the "people" chose against and not do them. In practice, does anyone actually do this in politics nowadays?) This is, of course, absurd. The final word on this came from Arrow in 1950s, but the truth is that some variants of the idea was known since 18th century, at least (Condorcet was certainly writing about them--often in opposition, it turns out--b/c he did point out that even if what "the people" want cannot be measured, what it is that they don't want can be, although it really needs to be a fairly extreme and universal opposition for that to show up meaningfully.). Basically, what it is that "the people" want cannot be clearly identified--there are all sorts of ways to manipulate things so that people can be made to "want" all sorts of things through the mechanical process of voting.
So, the idea of "democracy" has taken two divergent routes, both emanating from Arrovian observations. First, the naive have been sold a bill of goods about what "democracy" can achieve--that the government should seek out what it is that "the people" want and should follow them. The cynical, on the other hand, have absorbed the wrong lesson from Arrow, that what it is that "the people" want can be manipulated so that all manner of things can be shown to be "the people's will," via messing with the rules and procedures. At the end of the day, the product of the manipulation are presented to the masses as "the people's will." You said you wanted to do X, so we'll do X (nevermind how we got there.) So far, we are not at the stage of what Condorcet et al have shown to be "what it is that people don't want" that can be shown "democratically," but we seem to be getting close. Arrow and others, after all, did not think in terms of information and uncertainty, and the possibility of gaslighting and self-delusion that they present. If we are in fact at the stage where the people are sold somethnig that they actually do not want in a Condorcet-like manner, but are insistently told that that's what they really want, will they recognize what's going on?
"this has led to the spread of a private sector mentality into what was the public sector and a corresponding fall in ethical standards"
This was the insight of Jane Jacobs' "Systems of Survival" – that there are two entirely antithetical moral codes (she calls them "syndromes" in the book), that of Guardian and that of Commerce. Corruption occurs when the moral code of the one syndrome is applied in a human organization the proper goals of which call for the opposite moral code – crudely put, business morals have no place in government and government morals have no place in business
This is an excellent critique of modern, neoliberal 'liberal democracy', AKA liberal hegemony, AKA liberal dictatorship. In contrast, China's bottom-up democratic system, dominated by the Communist Party of China (CPC) offers an alternative. As described in journals, China's democracy begins at the local level, the very bottom of social organizations. The people choose a representative who advances to the next level, and so on until the governing body of China itself who chooses the leadership.
When things go awry, the next expression of democracy are protests and demonstrations. In this case, some unaddressed problem has emerged that the state ignores, and the people bring it to attention of their leaders. Unlike in the West where protests are brutally suppressed, the CPC actually listens to the people and alters their policy accordingly.
Of course, this system could not work universally, but at the least it is a welcome alternative to liberalism.
Actually, I wonder whether this relatively unprecedented restructuring of French politics around three blocs, making the country potentially ungovernable, isn't one of the first concrete (and so far relatively painless) political consequences of a much deeper demographic and cultural restructuring of the electorate...
As I commented on NC , its likely the majority of French citizens would like 'no politics' and no government until 2027. Indeed until 2037 if that can be managed. A general sigh of relief as people can get on with living, making the best of the current situation, no foreign 'adventures', no radical changes, and a decline in the constant tinkering with 'administration' of everything in everyone's lives.
Do not be so foolish - these one liner pseudo Delphic pronouncements are trivial - western interference in the RoW is on it's out - you should at least read what Aurelien writes
I guess your title is inspired by E M Forster’s short story of the same name? If so, it’s an appropriate analogy.
The French anthropologist Emmanuel Todd has (slightly tongue in cheek) mused that western democracies do not reflect what the people want these days but paradoxically autocracies such as Russia and China might be better at doing so. He has a point.
The UK has avoided the French situation but the electoral set up was not so different. Instead, we have a government that can almost do as it pleases for five years but which only 20% of the eligible voters chose. I am not sure that France is in a worse situation in reality.
Ultimately, the root cause of the mess across the west is fractured societies (with no real common values), almost unprecedented levels of inequality (UK Gini Coefficient circa 35% up from 25% in the mid 70s), stagnant or declining living standards for most people for several decades (despite the hype about GDP) and the loss of independent mass institutions (such as unions, political parties, clubs) that bind society, politics and the governmental system.
My belief is that the west is heading for system collapse and that nothing will fix things in the meantime. The machine is quite simply out of control and nobody is steering it. It is steering itself onto rocks.
Todd's idea that there is no true "liberal democracies" but only "illiberal democracies" and "liberal plutocracies" is indeed very insightful.
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. The technical term for this is a "beard".
Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so.
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Robert Kagan come to mind .
Taking into account how wildly unpopular most western politicians and their policies are with their respective publics, "democracy" as it is practiced is basically a cover for rulers to do what they want.
Democracy is not possible in the current set up as was detailed in this essay any where in the West (the Empire). In the US we have been moving gradually to a one-party state with media, federal bureacracy, industry, oligarchs all supporting that party (Democrats and most elected Republicans). The fly in the ointment for this one party is Trump. If he wins then some version of "democracy" can be revived, if he loses, we will be facing low-level civil-war. This is why most of the institutional forces oppose Trump.
It is not certain that Todd is the only person who has figured out that politics in China and the RF is considerably more participatory than in the West
I would have thought this common and general knowledge
Read the Resolution and the Explanation of the recent CPC Third Plenum to see how this works in practice
Or any of the the many thousands of second level explanations and road maps given by a very broad swathe of commentariats - which provide evidence of how the process en marche
The Western ruling class surpresses democracy in their own countries
Their shut eye ignorance and notions of superiority prevent them from having a clue about political practices, or any other, in the rest of the world
"Sarkozy (2007-12) was a slimy, corrupt provincial lawyer escaped from a Balzac novel, whereas Hollande (2012-17) was a colourless bureaucrat with the charisma of a soggy baguette, and of Macron there is nothing of interest to say at all." Mon Dieu :)))
"One of the most noted features of the British and French elections this year was that the number of seats gained in the parliaments of the two countries had little connection with the percentage of the popular vote, or the balance of public opinion generally. Even the media adjacent to the Professional and Managerial Caste (PMC) and so part of the Outer Party, did at least deign to notice the fact, and even went so far as to accept that most people voted reluctantly, and often against, rather than for, something."
The rulers do not care if the election featured 20% turnout and those who voted were dispirited and only voted against The Other Guy, as long as their orders still are obeyed.
Similarly, it does not matter why a voter votes the way they did, whether they voted out of old habit, genuine enthusiasm, to please a parent or spouse, to vote the other guy out. Their vote counts the same as any other vote.
Anyway, Macron will try to rule by decree, without forming a government. Legal? Probably not, but so what? As long as that is what will keep the War On Russia and the War On Gaza going, nobody will raise a peep, or at least nobody who can do anything about it.
The US Electoral College has been a prime example of this lack of representation in the White House and the gerrymandering evident in the House of Representatives.
1. Need to go back to the creation and purpose of "Democracy"
Hint: Glorious Revolution & French revolution... as the saying goes: Follow the money
2. If "governments" do not control financial and monetary policy, what exactly is it that they govern?
"stability in the Western democracies was based on the millennial Roman recipe – give the poor bread and circuses and they will not revolt – ‘bread’ is already in short supply due to the dual effect of shrinking economies, and a reduced ability to siphon wealth from the Global South.
Political systems, spectator sports and media entertainment, – the modern day circuses – are losing their effectiveness. Significantly, Western masses are starting to catch up with the fact that the route to change purportedly offered by elections only brings more of the same."
"Democracy: Made by the Money Powers for the Money Powers"
Aurelian never fails to provide a new pair spectacles through which to view events unfolding before our eyes. He again reveals an underlying order, a logic, to what often seems to outsiders as random, capricious, or downright illogical.
This was a really excellent essay that toutch some fundamentals indeed!
About Democracy:
"Let’s simply say that a democracy exists when the wishes and wants of the citizens are as far as possible translated into the characteristics and functioning of the society in which they live."
This is almost the verbatim definition provided by the Xi Jinping, President of China and describing PRC.
Corruption:
The Chinese, again, have some experience, and below are some of the Qing Emperor Hongu, who fought corrupted officials tirelesly:
"Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government knew how wicked they were, so everyone said my punishments were harsh, for they saw only the severity of the law and didn’t know that these villains had used the government’s good name to engage in evil practices. In the morning I punished a few and, by evening, others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the punishment, the more violations. I didn’t know what to do, but I couldn’t rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order deteriorated, people thought me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them, others regarded me as a tyrant. How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, my situation was dreadful."
Bureaucracy and civil service, nowadays, is a bit of a sham. Especially when it comes to the management. Few come from the ranks, they go to all kinds of colleges that mint bureaucrats and we know what they study there, nothing with much practicality. But not ethics.
The merit and ethic commissioners are all but toothless. They cannot for instance look into merit complaints of management. And they are such selected that they will never turn against the administration/government/executives and their decisions. Ou sont "les mandarines" d'autre temps...
The Party:
What can I say that Simone Weil had not said better almost 100 years ago in her famous essay:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/simone-weil-on-the-abolition-of-all-political-parties
So yeah, Sortition, Baby!
The executive cannot be left in the hands of most of the present PMC representatives, but haven't yet figured out a way to select / appoint. Romans had the dictator position for exceptional times, and maybe something like that would be needed to create a clean slate and reinvent things: the actual history of political systems is far richer than thought. Aristotle is not tought in schools, but its should (https://indi.ca/the-triangle-of-power/). And the smorgardsboard of political options from the past has been brought to life/light by that somewhat optimistic book, that smashed the TINA principle in a billion of pieces: "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity".
I especially like the present essay because also comes with a silver lining: people will look at other options, outside of what is currently offered. If the hunger and need gets dialed up by exogenous or endogenous events, hoi polloi will show their teeth and claws. And they are multitudes.
Quote: "Romans had the dictator position for exceptional times, and maybe something like that would be needed"
There you have the problem and the solution!
FEEDBACK LOOP:
All systems have a feedback loop to operate satisfactorily:
When a child touches something hot, he gets feedback that this is bad, and avoids it in the future. Similarly for animals and adults. Burnt once in the equities casino, smart people will avoid such investments in the future. The whole concept of machine automation and control systems is having a feedback loop. Take driving for example, you brake when you see a car stopping in front of you. etc.
In democracies the REAL rulers are not the "elected" clowns, however the clowns are presented to the gullible masses as the "rulers/decision makers"
Thus when something goes wrong it is the clowns that are blamed not the rulers. So effectively there is no feedback loop.
In a monarchies, dictatorship, single party rule, etc. if anything goes wrong, the real power is blamed, so there is an effective feedback loop.
Hence the worse of monarchies, dictatorship, single party rule, etc. are inherently better than the "best democracies".
This is why Money Powers created "democracies" they can rule behind a facade of useful idiots.
Yes. The problem with the monarchies, dictatorships, etc, is that once the blame is correctly assigned, there is no legal mechanism to remove those in power, but they have half the problem resolved at least--and if the rulers are wise, they would do what they can to address them. The problem with a lot of "democracies," as you note, is that the other problem is not properly addressed (this, incidentally, is literally what Bagehot said--in the English system, as of 19th century, you know who was responsible because they had all the power, and the electoral process, however imperfect it was, allowed for orderly and legal removal of those responsible from power. The details, as I see it, are not that important, as long as these two general principles are met: who do you blame and, if they deserve it, can you throw them out of power in an orderly and legal fashion?
I want to add that even Machiavelli insisted that "the people" ought not to be insulted or oppressed as a practical matter for the Prince or whoever the rulers are.
However, despite your purported feedback loop, monarchies, dictatorships and single party rule are not responsive to change, except through concerted (and so, difficult to achieve,) action and very often, necessarily, violence.
Study these cases:
Dictatorship - Gaddafi
Single party rule - China
Theocracy - Iran
I think that's a dangerous and misleading idea about "democracy." (see my comment on this thread).
The only workable definition of "democracy" we can have, in my opinion, is that whenever the discontent with the regime reaches a certain threshold, a mechanism exists to throw them out. Since what "the people want" is mathematically and logically impossible to ascertain (it's easy to manipulate the procedures and rules so that more people want something else, no matter what that is.), defining "demoracy" in terms of what people want is at best naive and, at worst, a setup for de facto electoral fraud. Those in power (defined somewhat broadly--I'm including Herr Stamer and his swell gang in this category despite having been the nominally out party in the last government.) can always set themselves up as "at least you don't want THAT" choice and manipulate the rules and procedures if necessary to achieve that. We are seeing variations of that play out in UK, France, and United States already.
Personally, rather than sortition, I'd much rather prefer the other Greek voting system: Ostracism. Whoever that is chosen to be voted out should be banned from holding public office (as a group--so the entire party, not just the leadership.) for a decade at least. Perhaps Ostracism should be held every year, or two years. Maybe that should be followed by another election, perhaps even by sortition. But whatever the means, the first thing should be a surefire means to get rid of the unpopular incumbents (prefably as a collective) for as long as practically possible as frequently as possible.
With Ostracism as you describe it, you would run out of governments very quickly. The solution is not to have such people in power at all = sortition = qualified randomness.
(And despite the authors warning, we have strayed into alternative governance issues).
If Ostracism causes governments to run out quickly, we wouldn't stand a chance with a random selection anyways. I don't trust the dice any more than I do politicians and I don't think I'm alone in this regard.
In the case of the USA, for the first roughly 170 to 190 years of its existence it was thought, in my view correctly, that democracy could not be based solely on just the vote, it also required democratic governance structures. We used to have them in the form of our former decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old, which were fundamentally completely different than today's version of them which are centralized and effectively publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. And for them to function properly they required operating within a semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system so that local forces could engage in public policy at their level. The so called Populist and Progressive Eras (I wrote so called because they were named that long after their facts) are very misunderstood, almost all that occurred in them was one by hundreds of different groups spread out across the country acting independently of each other. Even the New Deal Era is lied about, the 1930s and 1940s and even the 1950s were not the centralized technocratic dictatorships we're taught they were in American schools. It really at some point in the early 1960s (with lots of prep work for it done in the 1950s) the system we have today started to get put into place but for a lot of the really big stuff it wasn't until between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that we took the big leap towards public sector AND private sector centralization (and by then our parties had been transformed already, which I recon was necessary for that leap to occur).
In spite of the rosy picture you paint, the US constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely.
The statement that "the US Constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely" is historically reductive and highly misleading. Yes, many of the Constitution's framers were wealthy landowners, but the document itself was shaped by a wide spectrum of competing interests and compromises aimed at balancing power across different sectors of society and geographic areas. Many of those who formally and in some cases informally framed it were interested in limiting centralized authority and preventing any single group, including themselves, from permanently holding power. The checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights, etc. were designed to distribute power among different branches of government and between the states and the federal government, which inhibited any one faction, including the wealthy elite you referred to, from controlling things permanently indefinitely. Very firm evidence of this can be provided via the verifiable fact that much of the very groups you referred to declined in status with a short number of decades from its creation, in fact the very literal people who made them declined in power, Andrew Jackson's rise alone, which happened in some of their lifetimes, is evidence of their decline/ Also, the democratic structures, such as regular elections and representative government, and while it initially limited many groups ability to fully participate politically, the very framework itself was used to expand suffrage and civil rights over time which contradicts the claim that it was solely about preserving elite control forever.
It should also be noted that, once the elites cheated Jackson out of power in 1824, they could never pull off anything like that--and, to pull that off in the first place, they needed help from Henry Clay, who, himself, was a quasi-Jackson like figure in terms of his background (and thus, Jackson's most hated rival). The idea that rules are written by some kind of privileged people who were already in power, imho, is a straw man logic: rules are, by definition, always written by people who were in positions of influence when they are written. You will not find a set of divine rules falling from sky, except, I suppose, in Exodus. The real question is whether the rules are designed to minimize social upheaval and provide for self-correction when things are getting dangerous. I think one thing that American Founding Fathers deserve credit for is that they were properly worried about social disruptions and upheavals and seriously thought about how to address them via "good governance" (YMMV wrt the definition of "good" governance) (something that they shared with Bismarck and generations of Russian and Chinese rulers--as for the latter, until the dynasts were too accustomed to the system working "right" without maintenance--the Chinese dynastic cycle, I think, runs on this principle: the founders were usually suitably afraid of social disruptions and were eager to work hard towards mitigating discontent proactively, while the later dynasts began to believe that the "laws" operated by themselves as if through magic and they can game them without suffering consequences--and, eventually, they did. This logic applies even to "demoractic" regimes, too, it seems.)
As I see it, a functional "democracy" does, however it does it--by not allowing popular discontent from building up above some level by not even having a pretension of "representation." Any method of selecting government that pretends to "represent" (this includes sortition) whatever is doomed to fail because people cannot agree on what they want and avail themselves to be gamed one way or another--whether that means voters being gamed by "politicians" or the "politicians" being gamed by the "political insiders," or whatever. The only thing you cannot easily gamed, I think, is identifying whoever is most hated and/or distrusted.
Agreed, but much of how the Framers succeeded was through decentralization. Same with China in recent decades, Xi and interest groups around the national center have been trying hard to centralize things, the stuff they just came out with in the 3rd Plenum, if actually enacted, would deeply centralize things there, but from the, I guess mid 1980s, some number of years after 2015 (when Xi came in) they were the most politically and economically decentralized nation (amongst those with functional national centers, I mean) on Earth; and in some of the most key ways, they, despite being a dictatorship, cosmic level ironically more closely resembled the political and economic structures of the USA's Old Republic than contemporary America does. At least for vast nations like China and America, decentralization (sort of like the national government is a weak loose empire) can not only enable far more people to "win" from elections (mainly because of things related to the variability in policy it enables), it also leads to much more "good governance"
So what? These gentry had, in the main, the idea to benefit society and the people who live in their domains. Today, the oligarch class does not care even a little about what happens to the people or the society as a whole. It was clearly laid out in the book <i>The Revolt of the Elites</i> by Christopher Lasch.
He's also just wrong, here's my reply to him: "The statement that "the US Constitution was in the main written by a group of wealthy landed gentry, who aimed it so that those such as themselves would remain in power indefinitely" is historically reductive and highly misleading. Yes, many of the Constitution's framers were wealthy landowners, but the document itself was shaped by a wide spectrum of competing interests and compromises aimed at balancing power across different sectors of society and geographic areas. Many of those who formally and in some cases informally framed it were interested in limiting centralized authority and preventing any single group, including themselves, from permanently holding power. The checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights, etc. were designed to distribute power among different branches of government and between the states and the federal government, which inhibited any one faction, including the wealthy elite you referred to, from controlling things permanently indefinitely. Very firm evidence of this can be provided via the verifiable fact that much of the very groups you referred to declined in status with a short number of decades from its creation, in fact the very literal people who made them declined in power, Andrew Jackson's rise alone, which happened in some of their lifetimes, is evidence of their decline/ Also, the democratic structures, such as regular elections and representative government, and while it initially limited many groups ability to fully participate politically, the very framework itself was used to expand suffrage and civil rights over time which contradicts the claim that it was solely about preserving elite control forever. "
Also, I used to be a fan of Lasch, still kinda am, but I've come across reason to believe he was just bulls**ting
nice call out for indi.ca
Great stuff, as always! Many thanks.
The world's leading democracy is Switzerland's, whose participatory politics are probably impractical for larger, diverse countries. But hard on its heels, and ahead of #3 Singapore, is China, which ticks all the boxes–from 32 constitutional guarantees of democracy (the US Constitution does not mention democracy because the Founders hated it) to its outcomes, which please 80% of Chinese (20% in the USA) and whose overall directions pleases 96% of them. Even when asked directly if they have enough democracy, 75% say 'yes,' compared to 35% of Americans.
In time, this will become widely known but, for now, must go unnoticed.
Exactly - the western ignorance is amazing
I appreciate your writings and wish that you up the unpaid content, substack et al have cloven to US style payment systems which the RoW, well the sub saharan part, can not easily access
Have you lived in Switzerland - the democracy bit is not untrue, but most other aspects of that society are exclusionary, severely racist, and narrow minded
Still there's hope for them yet as they appear to be being sucked into the EU by default, and adopting the divide and rule of EU identity politics (as all other) as a substitute for their own, so exchanging their home grown form of ignorance for the identical imported
All the traditional “ideologies” are now obsolete. There is no more “left” or “right”. It’s all grayish mass of the same slime. No values, no moral, no virtues, nothing. Long time ago, accomplished people of all professions would have started to do politics and try to use their lifelong experience to make the society better. Now, a politician is an occupation. It’s their first and only job. F….. misery.
>>I’ve become convinced, in fact, that with the machine seizing up as it has, those who make a populism of the Left impossible will make a populism of the Right inevitable.
For the last four or five years I've been trying to say this to anyone who cares to listen, but perhaps next time I'll steal your elegant phrasing.
One fundamental problem (which you elude to) is that the idea of what "democracy" means is poorly understood by too many people, in a way that people decades ago could see. One book that I like to point to is Charles Lindblom's book "Intelligence of Demcoracy." The idea, ultimately, comes down to how a more democratic government has a built-in safety valve, that a really incompetent and out of touch government that cannot meet the wishes of the large swaths of people cannot stay in power so that the workings of a "democracy" prevents popular discontent from buliding up to unhealthy levels. This, in turn, is really an adaptation of the idea attributed to Walter Bagehot from 19th century.
This holistic idea of what democracy might ultimately achieve has, however, been lost. Instead, people think in terms of "representation" (edit: or, what I consider to be a misconceived notion thereof) all too often, that what it is that "the people" want can be measured, even with some form of mathematical precision, and the government ought to accomplish them. (edit: this is, in the end, the idea behind a "mandate": the people "chose" us, we have a set of programs that we want to pursue, therefore we have the prerogative to do what we want to do. In fact, people chose against "the guys who used to be in power," not "you," let alone your agenda. So your task should be to figure out what it is that about the other guys the "people" chose against and not do them. In practice, does anyone actually do this in politics nowadays?) This is, of course, absurd. The final word on this came from Arrow in 1950s, but the truth is that some variants of the idea was known since 18th century, at least (Condorcet was certainly writing about them--often in opposition, it turns out--b/c he did point out that even if what "the people" want cannot be measured, what it is that they don't want can be, although it really needs to be a fairly extreme and universal opposition for that to show up meaningfully.). Basically, what it is that "the people" want cannot be clearly identified--there are all sorts of ways to manipulate things so that people can be made to "want" all sorts of things through the mechanical process of voting.
So, the idea of "democracy" has taken two divergent routes, both emanating from Arrovian observations. First, the naive have been sold a bill of goods about what "democracy" can achieve--that the government should seek out what it is that "the people" want and should follow them. The cynical, on the other hand, have absorbed the wrong lesson from Arrow, that what it is that "the people" want can be manipulated so that all manner of things can be shown to be "the people's will," via messing with the rules and procedures. At the end of the day, the product of the manipulation are presented to the masses as "the people's will." You said you wanted to do X, so we'll do X (nevermind how we got there.) So far, we are not at the stage of what Condorcet et al have shown to be "what it is that people don't want" that can be shown "democratically," but we seem to be getting close. Arrow and others, after all, did not think in terms of information and uncertainty, and the possibility of gaslighting and self-delusion that they present. If we are in fact at the stage where the people are sold somethnig that they actually do not want in a Condorcet-like manner, but are insistently told that that's what they really want, will they recognize what's going on?
"this has led to the spread of a private sector mentality into what was the public sector and a corresponding fall in ethical standards"
This was the insight of Jane Jacobs' "Systems of Survival" – that there are two entirely antithetical moral codes (she calls them "syndromes" in the book), that of Guardian and that of Commerce. Corruption occurs when the moral code of the one syndrome is applied in a human organization the proper goals of which call for the opposite moral code – crudely put, business morals have no place in government and government morals have no place in business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival
This is an excellent critique of modern, neoliberal 'liberal democracy', AKA liberal hegemony, AKA liberal dictatorship. In contrast, China's bottom-up democratic system, dominated by the Communist Party of China (CPC) offers an alternative. As described in journals, China's democracy begins at the local level, the very bottom of social organizations. The people choose a representative who advances to the next level, and so on until the governing body of China itself who chooses the leadership.
When things go awry, the next expression of democracy are protests and demonstrations. In this case, some unaddressed problem has emerged that the state ignores, and the people bring it to attention of their leaders. Unlike in the West where protests are brutally suppressed, the CPC actually listens to the people and alters their policy accordingly.
Of course, this system could not work universally, but at the least it is a welcome alternative to liberalism.
Actually, I wonder whether this relatively unprecedented restructuring of French politics around three blocs, making the country potentially ungovernable, isn't one of the first concrete (and so far relatively painless) political consequences of a much deeper demographic and cultural restructuring of the electorate...
Excellent article.
Populists from the Right will win medium term but longer term demographics suggest Islamist parties in the big cities will win and impose sharia law
As I commented on NC , its likely the majority of French citizens would like 'no politics' and no government until 2027. Indeed until 2037 if that can be managed. A general sigh of relief as people can get on with living, making the best of the current situation, no foreign 'adventures', no radical changes, and a decline in the constant tinkering with 'administration' of everything in everyone's lives.
Oh, the foreign adventures will only continue and expand.
Do not be so foolish - these one liner pseudo Delphic pronouncements are trivial - western interference in the RoW is on it's out - you should at least read what Aurelien writes
"those who make a populism of the Left impossible will make a populism of the Right inevitable."
"Those" being for example Starmer.