Democracy Rules

1. Democracy's Crisis: More Than Just "Crisis Chatter"

Everybody thinks they know that democracy is in crisis, but how many of us are certain what democracy actually is?

Crisis is real. While not every shock signals a fatal blow, the rise of authoritarian regimes, increasing political dissatisfaction, and events like Brexit and the election of unfit leaders point to a pervasive sense of democratic crisis. Understanding what democracy fundamentally is is essential before declaring its demise or resilience. The term "crisis" itself, in its original Greek meaning, denotes a moment of stark choice or judgment.

Beyond abstract numbers. The election of figures like Trump and the storming of the Capitol raise questions about the system's resilience or voters' fitness. Casual assumptions that such events kill democracy can be dismissed as "crisis chatter," but they highlight the need for clear criteria to identify a true "life-and-death moment" for the system. Such criteria must avoid immediate partisanship to be credible.

Returning to basics. To properly address the challenges, we must return to first principles, as Machiavelli recommended. This involves understanding the essential elements of democracy beyond just elections or basic rights, considering collective attitudes like civility and respect. Without this foundational understanding, distinguishing genuine threats from mere political outcomes we dislike becomes impossible, allowing subversion to go unnoticed.

2. Fake Democracy: Populism Divides, Not Unites, the "Real People"

in one way or another, they claim that they, and only they, represent what they often refer to as the “real people” or also the “silent majority.”

Moral monopoly. Populism is not merely criticism of elites; it's the claim to a unique moral monopoly on representing the "real people." This assertion has two detrimental consequences: it delegitimizes all political rivals as corrupt or failing the people, and it implies that those who disagree might not truly belong to the people. This systematically undermines the standing of certain citizens, particularly minorities and immigrants.

Political business model. While populists claim to unify the people, their de facto model is division. They often reach for ethnic or nativist definitions of the people, leading to exclusionary stances where some citizens may lose equality before the law or face increased hate and aggression. This "trickle-down aggression" is a tangible consequence of their rhetoric, empowering vigilantes and increasing attacks on vulnerable groups.

Not fascism, but dangerous. Today's threats barely rhyme with 20th-century fascism; they lack mass mobilization, militarization, and a cult of violence. However, contemporary authoritarian populism, often based on nationalism, hijacking the state for loyalists, and weaponizing the economy (crony capitalism, mass clientelism), is a distinct and dangerous art of governance. It involves simulating sovereignty while enriching elites and using state structures for partisan gain and protection of the guilty.

3. The Double Secession: How Elites and the Disengaged Undermine Democracy

for those able truly to “socially distance,” it is indeed not obvious why they should think of themselves as being in this together with the rest of the people.

Secession of the privileged. One major factor fragmenting societies is the "double secession," starting with the most privileged. Often mislabeled "liberal cosmopolitan elites," they are mobile and self-sort into wealthy enclaves, retreating from dependence on the rest of society. This isn't necessarily immoral, but it makes shared civic bonds less obvious and contributes to a sense that they are not "in this together" with others, sometimes even seeking distance from the "unthinking demos."

Oligarchic tendencies. This secession manifests not just in gated communities or tax havens, but in the ability of the ultra-wealthy to distort the political process. Individuals with concentrated wealth can afford services to minimize taxes and influence policy, particularly on economic issues like taxes and trade. This allows them to operate in a different political universe, effectively creating a de facto tyranny of the minority by controlling one major party and leveraging structural advantages in the political system.

Secession of the disengaged. The second secession involves citizens at the lower end of the income spectrum who increasingly disengage from politics. This isn't a conscious program but a result of deprivation and despair. It creates a vicious cycle where parties neglect those who don't vote, reinforcing the impression that politics offers nothing for them. This leads to declining and distorted participation, widening the gap between political elites and poorer citizens, as starkly revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Real Democracy: An Uneasy Harmony of Liberty, Equality, and Conflict

If you were going to express democracy in a musical score, your major theme would be the harmony of dissonance.

Equality and respect. Democracy is founded on the principles of freedom and equality. Political equality means citizens enjoy a sense of fundamental political equality and equal rights, responding to a basic human desire not to live in a caste society. Social equality, the ease among people who consider one another equal, extends this beyond formal politics into daily life, challenging domination in work and family.

Disagreement is not disrespect. Equality does not mean sameness or agreement; difference is compatible with political equality, while inequality is its opposite. Disagreement and conflict are inherent in a society of free and equal citizens with diverse views and experiences. True disrespect denies citizens' status as free and equal members of the political community, distinct from mere rudeness or incivility.

Freedom and choice. Beyond being treated equally by an impersonal system, people in a democracy want choices and the freedom to act and claim powers. Elections allow citizens to exercise this capacity for choice, offering something new and causing friction. While not guaranteeing equal influence, freedom means individuals can decide what matters most to them, even if their choices are based on different criteria or information.

5. The Art of Losing: Why Loyal Opposition is Crucial for Democracy

democracy can be defined as a political system in which parties lose elections.

Institutionalized uncertainty. Democracy is a system of "institutionalized uncertainty," meaning political outcomes, especially elections, must be uncertain. This uncertainty is not chaos but is contained by rules, providing hope for losers and making political engagement meaningful. If outcomes were certain, democracy would cease to function, resembling autocracies where results are predetermined.

Losing with integrity. Losing is a complicated but essential part of democracy. Populists often undermine democracy by claiming elections were rigged if they lose, damaging trust in institutions. Incumbents can also subvert defeat by stripping powers from offices they lose. However, losing can be done with integrity, maintaining political principles and building platforms for future wins, as seen in historical examples.

The loyal opposition. A crucial innovation of modern democracy is the concept of a loyal opposition – a coherent group against the government but loyal to the system's procedures and outcomes. They criticize the government fiercely but do not deny its legitimacy, providing a systematic alternative. Governing parties must recognize this role, allowing the opposition to have its say and engage in principled conflict, preventing the system from becoming a cartel or succumbing to behind-the-scenes intrigue.

6. Democracy's Critical Infrastructure: Parties and Media as Essential Mediators

A people is not just a political entity, as was once hoped. Parties, organized campaigns, and leaders make up the reality.

Beyond individual rights. Basic political rights like free speech and association are fundamental, but their effectiveness is multiplied by intermediary powers, particularly political parties and professional media. These institutions are indispensable for citizens to reach others, be reached, and exert collective power, forming a critical infrastructure for democracy akin to physical utilities like the postal service.

Structuring conflict. Parties and media don't just reflect society; they offer "visions of divisions," structuring and sometimes creating political conflicts. Parties articulate interests and ideas, mobilizing followers, while media can suggest different perspectives through reporting and investigation. This process is not about finding objective truth but presenting partisan perspectives constrained by facts, enabling citizens to make choices based on different value commitments.

Pluralism and rhythm. Healthy intermediary institutions require both external pluralism (diverse parties and media outlets) and internal pluralism (democratic processes within parties, variety of views within media). They also structure political time, providing rhythms like regular elections and news cycles that focus citizens' minds and provide common reference points. This contrasts with the constant distraction and lack of focus in highly fragmented or polluted information environments.

7. Technology's Impact: Not Destiny, But Shaping Democracy's Public Sphere

No technology determines the conditions of its own implementation.

Fitting into existing systems. The internet and social media are not inherently democratic or authoritarian; their impact depends heavily on the existing democratic infrastructure they fit into. In the U.S., the rise of a self-enclosed right-wing media ecosphere, predating the internet but exacerbated by it, shows how technology can amplify existing polarization and disinformation, turning "news" into political self-validation.

New challenges. While social media offers unprecedented access for individuals to make representative claims and organize, it also poses significant challenges. The ease of spreading misinformation and disinformation, often obscuring origins and leveraging algorithms for virality, pollutes the public sphere. This is compounded by business models based on maximizing "engagement," which can inadvertently reward radicalization and division for commercial reasons.

Surveillance capitalism. A more abstract threat is "surveillance capitalism," where tech companies profit from predicting and influencing user behavior based on vast data collection. This creates a potential for systematic activation of seemingly fixed identities and predictable behavior, running counter to democracy's core feature of institutionalized uncertainty. This power, concentrated in unaccountable individuals, poses a significant risk to the dynamic and open-ended nature of democratic politics.

8. Funding Democracy: Who Pays Matters for Political Equality

The conclusion for many citizens today is not only that dependence of this kind corrupts the process but also that there’s no point in getting engaged in politics, and this passivity in turn gives the resource-rich yet more leverage.

Democracy is not free. Maintaining democracy's infrastructure requires money, and who pays significantly impacts political equality. In many democracies, campaigns and parties are heavily reliant on concentrated wealth from wealthy individuals or corporations. This allows the resource-rich to exert disproportionate influence, effectively creating a system where some citizens vote with their wallets multiple times, undermining the principle of one person, one vote.

Public vs. private funding. While public funding for parties exists in many countries, it's often insufficient or combined with weak limits on private contributions, still favoring the wealthy. This contrasts with the idea of parties and media as public utilities producing public goods that the market alone won't sufficiently provide. The challenge is how to fund these goods publicly without the state (and thus ruling parties) controlling them.

Vouchers for citizens. One proposed solution is a system of individual democracy vouchers distributed to citizens, which they can allocate to parties or candidates. This would shift funding power from concentrated wealth to the broader citizenry, increasing the sense of efficacy for ordinary individuals and potentially forcing politicians to engage with a wider range of voters. Similar schemes could support local journalism and nonprofit media, empowering citizens to directly support the infrastructure they value.

9. Defending Democracy: The Risks of Militancy and the Promise of Disobedience

It will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provided its mortal enemies itself with the means through which it was annihilated.

Militant democracy. Faced with actors who use democratic means to undermine the system, some democracies employ "militant democracy," restricting rights (like banning parties) to defend their existence. This is based on the historical lesson that democracies can be legally abolished from within, as seen in Weimar Germany. However, critics argue that restricting fundamental rights to save democracy harms it, creating a paradox where the defense mechanism itself diminishes democratic pluralism.

Risks of banning. Banning parties or individuals is risky. It can be perceived as defeatism by established parties unable to win politically, potentially weakening citizens' support for the system. Banned actors can become martyrs, and the threat today is often stealthy capture of institutions rather than open calls for abolition. While courts often handle bans cautiously, the process can be politicized, and the criteria for what constitutes a ban-worthy threat are debated.

Democratic disobedience. When the political process is blocked or corrupted, and institutions fail to protect democracy, citizens may resort to democratic disobedience. This involves nonviolent, conscientious action, sometimes breaking laws, to highlight injustices or flaws in the democratic process. While distinct from mere incivility, it can be confrontational. Its effectiveness depends on reaching fellow citizens in a potentially fragmented public sphere, appealing to shared principles and demonstrating a commitment to the civic foundations of the polity.

Last updated: May 10, 2025