The totalitarian democracy
A re-run from the vaults to keep the issues front and center. The implied social contract that governs our democratic involvement has changed. In an increasingly complex, inter-connected, and rapid-pace world this is perhaps inevitable, but is worthy of note. Like the current economic recession, this change in the model of free government is a global phenomena. It is prevalent in the Western democracies, is alive and well in Israel and Russia, and is even undermining the nascent democracies that the West wants to nurture, like in Iraq and Iran. The worldwide disease is the onset of ‘totalitarian democracy’. Totalitarian democracy, as popularized by historian J. L. Talmon, can be defined as a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state, but whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. It is the the concept that after the voting process to elect government is complete, that citizens have little to do with the actual ongoing decisions of governance. To a degree, this change was unavoidable- we no longer reside in a city state where each and every decision can be voted on by the populace in its entirety. The creation of a representative system was in effect a recognition that democracy as a meaningful system of governance just became far too difficult for the average voter, as we have postulated before. The full totalitarian democracy model may not yet be upon us, but certainly we are moving closer toward it.
To put it in simple terms, the issues of modern day governance have become so complex (or as some cynics would contend, the electorate become so stupid) that the selection of a candidate on election day is the single democratic responsibility of the average voter. Thereafter, it simply becomes an unwritten blind-faith contract that the elected representatives will do the best for the people. This intuitively unnerves some people, but they find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is about the system that troubles them. Many on the conservative side of the aisle allude, but may not be able to consciously identify the concept, when they refer to President Obama as ‘‘The One.’ Though in truth, whether Obama is despot or savior is still out for decision, but there is an instinctive caution towards absolute power. Bush certainly had acted as though he had unfettered power in office. The election of the US President is now almost a almost as if a Messiah-like power is granted. It is as if elected President he has been granted Kingship without accountability.
Nor is this characteristic unique to the US model. Most modern nation states are showing similar symptoms. Putin has elements of, Chavez too, Ahmadinejad claims similar rights (though his is borrowed authority from Khamenei), the prospect of a twin-headed Knesset under Netanhayu-Lieberman embodies it, and on and on. It is as if democracy has been sold as the golden calf of the age, but its functionality has been inhibited by its own societal complexity. Where is the accountability in the system that currently exists? From where is the leaders surety of purpose drawn? Why is one side so sure the other is so wrong, and are just bone headed or deceptive in relation to their agenda? Take for example the current heated debate in the US about economic policy - whether through government intervention or the bloody cut and thrust of unregulated market the best answer will be found. What does it mean if the President’s policies, or indeed the opposing voices of criticism, are proven wrong? Does it negate the philosophy of either? For example, if the government intervention solves the problem, will the voices of the free-market crowd forever fall silent? Are the citizens even capable of understanding the nuances of the issues at all, or are they just plodding along following an ideology that has emotional appeal for them?
The democratic system that West operates under, and seeks to export, sometimes even by force or coercion, is imperfect. The paradigm that the West is peddling has serious design flaws. The democratic covenant relies on the faith of the electorate that the elected government will do no harm. To get more technical, in a quote from Wikipedia, “… Talmon’s 1952 book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy discusses the transformation of a state in which traditional values and articles of faith shape the role of government into one in which social utility takes absolute precedence. His work is a criticism of the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher whose ideas influenced the French Revolution. In The Social Contract, Rousseau contends that the interests of the individual and the state are one and the same, and it is the state’s responsibility to implement the “general will.” Is there a better iteration of democracy available than the current model?
Could technology change the system, facilitating a return to individual online votes on issues of conscience? It is an interesting concept, but would such a system even be practical given the sheer volume of decisions to be made, and the massive education initiatives required to ensure voters made informed decisions at that. Should such a system be restricted to social value decisions only- where the decsion is based on value and less education on the issue required? The unfortunate fact in the modern age is that no decision can be made in isolation – the problems have become multi-dimensional, internationally impactful, and incredibly complex. An apparently simple moral decision on contraception, for example, can impact population growth, resultant over harvesting or deforestation, food supplies, capital support requirements and on. No decision can be made in a vacuum. Given the average understanding demonstrated even by the most supposedly informed media commentators, the concept of such critical decisions actually made by the average voter is frightening.
So is totalitarian democracy all that most voters understanding of issues warrant? Is there a better system available? Most political scientists understand that systems of governance need to change to adapt to society’s evolution. Marx, the architect of communism, argued that his concept of communism was the best available model he could conceive at the time, but that as society approached his imagined Utopia that a better system would be conceived and society would move on towards that new paradigm. So, is it problematical that our own concept of democracy is stuck in a time warp and has not changed as a a concept. Were the founding fathers so wise that they described a system that would exist unchanged ad infinitum? Was the design they articulated reflective of the modern nation state complexities? We do not have the answers, but do believe the issue worthy of debate. However, to date any discussion on the issue remains silent, and that silence is the most worrying thing of all.
