The Fear Of Populism Expresses The Elite's Disdain For Democracy

Populism is democracy in action

When you work in Brussels – as I do – you soon realise that the oligarchy that runs the European Union has little time for democracy. Horse trading goes on behind closed doors and the people of Europe have no say about who gets the top jobs in the EU. Just now they decided that Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen will serve for a second term as European Commission president. They also chose Portugal’s António Costa and Estonia’s Kaja Kallas for the most senior positions at the European Council and the EU’s foreign policy service[i]. No question of democratic accountability here.

Aside from their personal ambition, what unites these three unelected leaders of the EU is a determination to halt the growing influence of populist parties throughout the continent. Anti-populist propaganda is constantly promoted through the mainstream media. As far as the media is concerned when populist parties succeed in an election it means that democracy is not working. And when democracy does not work according to the oligarchy’s rule book than its result can be safely ignored or sabotaged. There is not even a hint of disapproval from Politico when it casually informs its readers that ‘French Civil Servants Are Ready To Revolt If the National Rally Wins’ the election in France’[ii]. When it comes to fighting populism there is no need to stick to the rules of democratic decision making.

Yet democracy is a precious resource whose value should be upheld at all cost. Ensuring that the culture of democracy governs public life is the best way of guaranteeing the future of Europe. As I argued in my book, Democracy Under Siege: Don’t Let Them Lock it Down, democracy can never be taken for granted[iii]. It is for that reason that it is important to know what is at stake in the battle to defend democracy.

Democracy helps people find their voice

Throughout most of history, the political classes had little sympathy for people attempting to find their voice. Democracy as an ideal barely survived the ravages of centuries of political hostility. Even in those circumstances where societies acclaimed its virtues, democracy served as an ideal that was very rarely allowed to flourish. Though there were genuine attempts to construct a system of representation through which popular consent could be brought into a close alignment with the direction of travel of executive power, the realisation of the ideal of democracy has always faced formidable obstacles.

One key reason why the rhetorical affirmation of democracy was so rarely matched by a genuine commitment is because it is almost always perceived and treated instrumentally. This instrumental approach was most famously expressed in Winston Churchill’s statement to the effect that ‘democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others’. Churchill’s negative endorsement of democracy communicates a passive sense of resignation that fails to see any inherent virtues in this form of government.

Churchill’s pragmatic view of democracy as a means to an end captures the prevailing consensus on this issue. This sentiment is widely expressed by many supporters of liberal democracy, for whom the liberal principle of the rule of law serves as a first order principle, and democracy as a second-order one. This sentiment is forcefully expressed by the philosopher A.C. Grayling, who claims that while ‘democracy is not just elections, and can sometimes even exist de facto without them’, but it cannot exist ‘without the rule of law’.[iv] The model of a democracy that exists without elections is one that assigns citizens to the role of a stage army, which can periodically be mobilised to acclaim the decisions arrived at by their superiors.

Contrary to the anti-democratic prejudice that perceives the mass of society as a mob that threatens freedom, most of the time, it is the citizens who constitute the most reliable defence against the attempt to encroach on hard won liberties. Liberty, and the rule of law, are inextricably linked to democracy. Almost all the freedoms that matter to people were achieved through democratic aspirations and struggles. Freedoms were not granted by liberal oligarchs wedded to the idea of the rule of law but were wrested from the powerful through centuries of democratic struggle. Instead of counterposing freedom to democracy, both should be understood as the outcome of the same aspiration.

Democracy is not just a medium for realising the best results. If it is merely seen as a technocratic tool or a ‘lesser evil’, its potential for endowing public life with meaning and dynamism will go unrealised. Unfortunately, for many decades, democracy was relegated to the role of a medium of governance – and not surprisingly, many people became switched off from politics or adopted an anti-political cynical posture. In such circumstances, voting was often perceived as a pointless ritual, where how one voted did not matter.

Yet democracy is more than a set of procedures. It is an exercise in decision- making, where citizens find ways to have their voices heard and where they can also hear the voices of others. Through its exercise, it fosters a climate that allows public life to flourish. In the public sphere, the individual voter interacts with others as a citizen. It is at this point that politics can bring out the active side of people so that through argument, debate, conflict and acts of solidarity, citizens are not simply ‘voters’ but active participant in public affairs.

Democracy is a 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 a society can understand, assess and in many cases benefit from the insights of its citizens. Acting democratically and being involved – albeit indirectly – in the making of decisions, people can develop their ideas. In some instances, local democratic decision-making and interaction helps forge genuine bonds of solidarity.

In a society of millions of people, the ideal of democracy cannot be fully realised, and the bonds between citizens’ involvement can be weakened by geographical fragmentation and scale. However, the very attempt to live democratically is a good in and of itself. A democratic life assists cultural and intellectual development, by stimulating questioning and debate. Living democracy means just that: a life where deliberating and questioning becomes the norm to the point that people’s active side comes into its own, and their capacity for making sound choices is enhanced.

Through living democratically, people’s sense of independence and inner strength gains strength. As the American social theorist, Christopher Lasch explained, ‘democracy works best when men and women do things for themselves, with the help of their friends and neighbours, instead of depending on the state’[v]. Doing things for yourself should not be interpreted as narrow individualism: rather, such acts signal a determination to take control of life and take responsibility for it. It is through a willingness to assume responsibility for one’s actions that solidarity is forged and genuine self-governing communities can be established. Hence encouraging people to find their voice and engage with one another is the precondition for the flourishing of democratic life.

In the end, how we view democracy depends on how we regard human beings and their potential for development, for exercising self-rule and taking responsibility for their community and fellow human beings. Throughout history, anti-democratic theories have directed their animosity towards the majority of people inhabiting their society. In their eyes, these people were their social, economic, and moral inferiors. Anti-democratic theories justify the rule of the few on the grounds that most human beings lack the moral and intellectual resources necessary to trust them with determining or influencing the future direction of their society.

Over the centuries, the explicit vilification of the masses has given way to a more indirect and covert narrative. In the 21^st century, the anti-democratic devaluation of people takes its most strident and coherent form through the discourse used to describe the persona and behaviour of political opponents. Anti-populism, which is the form assumed currently by the historical anti-majoritarian impulse, continually describes its opponents as xenophobic, ignorant and mentally deficient. From this standpoint, people who vote the ‘wrong way’ are not simply erroneous – they are diagnosed as suffering from a psychological deficit.

The spirit of democracy encourages all of us to take each other seriously. That is why we argue and debate with one another and need the freedom to express ourselves in accordance with our views and inclinations. Free speech is the foundation of all the other freedoms required for the flourishing of democracy. Individuals cannot play the role of citizens until they find their voice.

The more that people feel that their voice counts, the more likely it is that public life will come alive and enhance the quality of our political imagination. That for millions of people, politics has become a dirty word is an indictment of a governmental culture that prefers to de-politicise issues rather than open them up to public debate. The negative anti-political trends that signal the idea that somehow politics is to blame for many of our problems constitutes a negation of democracy. There is nothing positive or radical about anti-politics – it simply expresses the conviction that the pursuit of democratic decision making is futile.

The flipside of the rejection of politics is the acceptance of the world as it is. In contrast, democratic politics assumes that the choices people make can make a difference. It constitutes a refusal to defer to Fate. Constant references to the crisis of democracy should not be allowed to obscure the fact that it still remains an ideal that motivates millions of people. The instinct that has driven so many people to refuse to defer to Fate has ensured that the spirit of democracy could survive all the many attempts to undermine its appeal.

Numerous forms of governments have come and gone – theocracies, oligarchies, absolute monarchies, totalitarian dictatorships – but more than 2,500 years on from its birth, the idea of democracy alone continues to endure and inspire. Why? Because as long as people aspire to be free, the vision of politically equal citizens governing themselves inspires the human imagination like no other political ideal. The war against democracy will continue into the indefinite future but the vision that shapes its core values will survive all attempts to defeat it.

No doubt the technocrats who run the EU will try to marginalise the voice of populism. At the first opportunity they will betray the ideals of democracy. But they will not have it all their way. The mood of Europe is changing. Millions of people are saying ‘enough is enough’. And as long as we invest our energy in making democracy work we can always hope for a better future.

**********************************

The Patriotic Manifesto just announced by the newly established group - Patriots for Europe - composed of Austrian, Czech and Hungarian political leaders offers a clear alternative to outlook of the EU oligarchy.

A Patriotic Manifesto for a European Future

The Nations of Europe are at a historic juncture. The European Union — once a dream project rooted in a desire for reconciliation after the destruction caused by two world wars and decades of division — has turned against Europeans and now pursues interests contrary to the will of the Nations, Regions and small communities that constitute our European home.

Institutions largely unknown to and removed from European citizens — along with strong globalist forces, unelected bureaucrats, lobbies and interest groups with contempt for the voice of the majority and of popular democracy — are planning to replace the Nations. With what? A European central state.

The elections for the new European Parliament this June were therefore of generational and existential significance. The political fault line today no longer runs between conservatives and liberals or between Right and Left, but between Centralists who herald a new European “superstate”, and Patriots and Sovereigntists who fight to preserve and strengthen the Europe of Nations we cherish. Only through the victory and cooperation of patriotic and sovereigntist parties across the continent we can guarantee our children’s inheritance.

We Believe in a Europe

• of strong, proud and independent Nations free in their determination to live and cooperate in concord with each other;

• united through institutions with legitimacy rooted in Nations, mandated by and held accountable to the peoples of Europe;

• sovereign and unwavering in the pursuit of its interests, free from dependencies that obstruct the fulfillment, at home and abroad, of the will of its national communities;

• committed to peace and dialogue, while ready to defend itself against any threat;

• that safeguards and celebrates its European identity, traditions and customs, the fruits of its Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage;

• that cherishes the inherent diversity among its Nations, their history and way of life, while resisting ultimatums to change according to the fashion of the day;

• that champions real freedoms, fundamental rights and human dignity, while fiercely resisting attempts to limit or redefine these freedoms;

• competitive, productive, efficient and proud of its intellectual, scientific and economic feats as a continent of innovation, excellence and progress;

• determined to protect its borders, to stop illegal migration and to preserve its cultural identity, following the will of the vast majority of European citizens;

• of Nations ready to protect their people against any and all potential threats coming from the political, economic, religious and cultural spheres;

• that respects its own mandate and rules, does not act beyond its competencies, abides by the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality and ceases to justify its attacks on national sovereignty by applying pressure through the European budget;

• of Nations that refuses all further transfers of national sovereignty to the European institutions;

• that respects the veto right of Nations;

• that recognizes diplomacy as a fundamental element of the sovereignty of Member States, and as a matter for each Nation to decide upon freely without committing others to the same course of action.

We, the patriotic forces of Europe, pledge to return the future of our continent to the European people by retaking our institutions and reorienting European policy to serve our Nations and our people. To prioritize sovereignty over federalism, freedom over diktats, and peace: this is the Manifesto of Patriots for Europe.

*****************************************************

Roots & Wings with Frank Furedi is a reader-supported publication. From September onwards we hope to employ a part-times researcher. Please consider making a financial contribution to the Roots & Wings cause.

---

---

[i] https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-costa-and-kallas-bag-eu-top-jobs/

[ii] https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/french-civil-servants-ready-to-revolt-if-national-rally-wins-hf9tr2kvm

[iii] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Democracy-Under-Siege-Dont-Them/dp/1789046289

[iv] Grayling, A.C. (2017) Democracy and Its Crisis, Oneworld Publications.

p.32.

[v] Lasch, C. (1995) The Revolt of the Elites: and the Betrayal of Democracy, W.W. Norton & Company, New York