Is democracy experiencing a bit of a crisis? The Brexit process has highlighted the risk the establishment runs when they ask “the people”; the French Gilets Jaunes protests underlines the difference between what voters like in principle and what they are willing to do in practice; and in the US, the polarisation of politics also bears witness to the difficulty some people have with accepting the results of elections.
We have always maintained that democracy is mob rule, a way for a majority to dominate minorities. The British Labour party are up-front about it: “for the many, not the few” is how they tag-line their suite of hard-left policies, promising to rob a minority and hand the proceeds to a majority. It may be undeliverable fantasy economics, but it is popular. It is the prospect of a 2nd referendum thwarting Brexit, however, that has prompted indignant calls of a betrayal of democracy. And indeed, that does appear to be what is happening; the “will of the people” ignored and overridden by an elitist Parliament that has always been in favour of remain by a large majority. But of course, the will of the people does not mean the best decision. We have always been firmly in favour of Britain’s exit from the EU while recognising that the reasons for the vote were manifold, and that we were unlikely to agree with many fellow Brexiteers as to why Britain should leave. It is fair to say that the vast majority of the electorate were uninformed and swayed by ridiculous arguments (on both sides). And those who argue for a 2nd referendum are arguably right when they claim people should be able to change their minds. It’s just not what you do in a democracy. Given the democratic rules, Britain should leave regardless of the consequences. The vote was a way of making a difficult decision, but it was a decision made by voters who had very little grasp of the question they were being asked to answer.
They have similar problems in the US. Identity-politics obsessed Democrats are drifting further to the left, led by Veteran “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders and rising star Alexandria Ocassio- Cortez. The latter is behind the New Green Deal (NGD), a utopian policy of changing the US economy to be 100% renewable energy based. Masquerading as environmental policy, it is laced with hard-left policies like a federal jobs guarantee and nationalisation of industries. The NGD is, of course, based on fantasy economics (as we discuss here), but that doesn’t really matter as the electorate hasn’t read it. Its popularity is based on what it aims to achieve, not on how it proposes to achieve it. Every declared Democrat presidential candidate endorsed the NGD, but to their credit it seems at least some of them did so reluctantly – they probably read it and are only in favour of it because it is politically dangerous to disown it. And while it is unlikely ever to become policy (not least because many of its proposals are probably unconstitutional), its popularity is a good example of how easy it is to entice the voters with lofty promises.
But as anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it:
What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.
The very first democracy, in fifth century BC Athens, allowed adult male citizens to vote, but many later democracies were very selective in who participated, often requiring land ownership as a criterion. And while this is unthinkable today, landowners could be expected to be (at least better than average) educated and knowledgeable and their family-owned wealth ensured decisions were made with the long term in mind.
In the UK, adult men were enfranchised in 1918 and women in 1928, with the voting age set at 18. And with that, we have allowed anyone a say in who rules us. Given the enormous power vested in political office, the right to vote is an immense responsibility. But it is not one which is taken seriously; few make a concerted effort to stay informed and on top of the issues that matter. Many are ignorant and naïve: those who think HTML is a sexually transmitted disease and those who believe storms affect cloud computing are all given a say. The left, both in the UK and US, are advocating lowering the voting age – in an obviously politically motived move, given how the young are often infatuated with socialism. But should people who politicians don’t trust to drive cars or buy alcohol be allowed a say in government? It is insane.
But of course, the real problem is that democracy with some version of “universal” suffrage is prone to bad decision making by design, because majority rule – at least from the point of view of someone beholden to an individualist ideology – is just mob rule. And nothing appeals to the mob more than redistribution of wealth. In fact, any political system that allows for socialism to win power should be discarded. Many recognise the downsides of democracy but maintain that it is the best model of rule we have. Anarcho-capitalists advocate no government, but given the choice between models of government, Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates for monarchy over democracy, because the long-term perspective inherent in “ownership” of a country would prompt better decision making. Democracy, he proclaims in his excellent book’s title, is “the God that failed”. The “crisis” of democracy, therefore, isn’t one of democracy being thwarted and it isn’t merely a crisis; it’s more of a terminal disease. Representative democracy has failed – or to be precise, it never had a hope in the first place. Giving the uninformed the vote to, by majority, put others in power simply invites bad government.