If we are to avoid defeat in the Culture Wars, we need to rely on democracy

Why the European Commission Dislikes Real Democracy

This week's publication of the European Commission’s Annual Strategic Foresight Report makes for interesting reading. It outlines several threats and challenges facing the EU, the most important of which is what it characterises as the Crisis of Democracy.

The discussion surrounding the crisis of democracy is communicated in an opaque language that self-consciously avoids offering an explicit account of what the EU is getting at. Reading between the lines, it is evident that its two main concerns are that it lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the European public and that – secondly – as a result, too many of the wrong type of people seem to get elected.

The term crisis of democracy serves as a euphemism for the crisis of the EU. As the Foresight Report indicates, 47% of citizens agree that their voice counts in the EU, while 49% think it does not. That most people feel estranged from the EU is a symptom of the lack of legitimacy that this institution enjoys amongst the public. But instead of acknowledging its legitimacy deficit as the source of the problem, it blames ‘the growing lack of interest in democratic life’.

The report also points the finger at the polarisation of political debate. It points to the ‘personalisation of politics, with political leaders considered more important than political parties’. This statement really means that the mainstream political parties that support the EU oligarchy are in trouble. The parties that have been the mainstay of EU federalism have either unravelled or have lost significant electoral support.

But lost support to who? Who are these political leaders that are more important than political parties? In its typical dishonest manner, the Commission’s report does not dare mention the word ‘populist’. Yet, from its perspective, it is the movements it brands as populist that are making serious headway. And that is what the Commission’s version of the crisis of democracy is all about.

The EU Commission possesses a very thin account of democracy. In recent decades it has indicated on numerous occasions that it does not favour direct democracy. It regards referenda with dread and often discounts outcomes as illegitimate. But it is also uncomfortable with the workings of representative democracy. From its standpoint, the exercise of popular democracy through elections is always a risky business. Therefore, the authors of this Annual Strategic Foresight Report believe that one of the most effective ways of resolving the so-called crisis of democracy is through bypassing democratic decision-making.

The Report’s solution to the crisis of democracy is outlined in the following proposal:

‘Strengthening democracy, including by increasing citizens’ agency. Building broad public support for sustainability requires increasing the participation of European citizens in democratic deliberations and policy-making processes, complementing representative democracy’.

The call to devise policy-making processes that complement representative democracy is important. Why do the decisions arrived at by democratic decision-making need to be supplemented by procedures enacted by unrepresentative bodies? The answer is simple. The Commission prefers a form of decision-making where its friends – NGOS technocrats and experts – can exercise a decisive influence.

Participative and deliberative processes are designed to manage policy-making by involving chosen ‘stakeholders’ in networking or seminar-like conditions. The managers of these events relatively easily influence those participating in such deliberations to share their outlook. Once they are onside, these stakeholders are cast as the genuine voices of the people they supposedly represent.  Deliberative democracy is a charade, a grotesque caricature of genuine democracy.

Deliberative democracy does not complement representative democracy. Its effect is to neutralise the wish of the electorate. The processes favoured by the Commission aim to outsource political decision-making to non-elected institutions – judiciary, international organisations, NGOs and an array of technocratic bodies. The Annual Strategic Foresight Report’s preference is for a regime of technocratic rule and not democracy.

Democracy is all we have!

Across Europe, significant sections of society feel psychically distant from their governments and institutions. They feel patronised by governments that believe their role is not to represent the people but to gain the public's acquiescence for their pet projects. In such circumstances, many feel like strangers and outsiders in their hometowns and nations. They feel that their habits, customs and traditions are constantly ridiculed by an oligarchy claiming to know what the public needs. Consequently, many Europeans are insecure about their cultural and community heritage and are drawn towards movements that promise to respect them.

The aspiration for solidarity is most consistently expressed by movements that claim to support the ordinary people in a struggle against an increasingly alien elite. That is what populism is about. Populist parties have gained strength throughout the European Continent because they give voice to people’s concerns. Often, they are the only groups who can effectively challenge the globalist woke political culture promoted by the technocratic managers that run the EU.

As matters stand, these technocratic managers and the political and cultural elites control virtually every important institution. It is unlikely that the people of the continent can wrest control of the media, the corporations, the universities and all the other cultural institutions. However, through popular participation in public life, democracy can work for the people. Through democracy, citizens can gain control over the state. And through gaining greater political influence, the people can roll back the gains made by the supporters of woke ideology in recent decades.

In this battle over the future of Europe and the West, democracy is all we have.     

We really need to take democracy seriously. Democracy is good in and of itself because it provides an opportunity for the potential creative powers of the people to be harnessed to the full. There are no guarantees that people will make sound decisions, and voters are not always right. However, it is through involvement in electing representatives or voting on issues that matter to them that society can understand, assess and, in many cases, benefit from the insights of its citizens. By acting democratically and being involved – albeit indirectly – in making decisions, people can develop their ideas. In some instances, local democratic decision-making and interaction help forge genuine bonds of solidarity. That is why the Annual Strategic Foresight Report is so worried about what might happen if democracy worked.

My argument for the valuation of democracy and the necessity for a populist response to the challenges of our time is outlined in my short book, Democracy Under Siege: Don’t Let Them Lock it Down