The Problem of Democracy by Alain de Benoist

The Problem of Democracy Reviews

• 
  Paul Christensen

  This book seeks to cut through the quasi-religious tone surrounding ‘democracy’ and examine what the word actually means.
  
  In the 20th and 21st centuries, everyone has wanted to be seen as ‘democratic’. Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 even proclaimed the USSR a ‘democracy’.
  
  This wasn’t always the case, though, even among leftists. None of the major French revolutionaries used the term, except Robespierre towards the end of the terror (when it didn’t do him much good!).
  
  ‘Democracy’ wasn’t a household word until Toqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ (1830s). Before that, writers who believed in ‘equality’, such as Rousseau, were admirers of Sparta rather than democratic Athens (ironically, the man who made Athenian democracy famous through the centuries, Pericles, exercised a quasi-royal authority over his city…)
  
  Athenian democracy, in any case, was very different to the modern beast. It was linked to tribe and to place, and thus was very much a blood and soil ideology. Also, the Athenians saw equality (before the law) as a means to democracy, not as something valuable in its own right.
  
  Some thinkers, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, have seen democracy as ‘primitive’, and monarchy as more highly evolved. Alain de Benoist thinks both views, and ‘linear’ views in general, are wrong. In ancient Europe, kings themselves were often elected by popular assembly. Only in the 1100s were most European monarchies hereditary. The vast majority of historical regimes had mixed systems of government.
  
  The working classes were often anti-democratic, as in Medici Florence - because the middle class who favoured democracy would give them less rights than the princes did.
  
  Alain de Benoist thinks the best state is the one that gives the best form to the values of a specific people. (By ‘people’ he means something closer to the French word ‘peuple’ or the German word ‘Volk’, i.e. an ethnic group).
  
  The modern liberal democracy actually distrusts the folk, but de Benoist on the contrary thinks that where there is no folk and only individuals, there can be no democracy.
  
  In chapter IV, de Benoist gives reasons why ‘liberal democracy’ or ‘formal democracy’ (our current system) is indeed a farce.
  
  Among other reasons:
  
  - People elect representatives, but these must delegate their tasks to unelected officials (as portrayed in the classic 1980s satire ‘Yes Minister’).
  
  - Party ‘brands’ mean that candidates aren’t elected for their personal qualities.
  
  - Lukewarm voters are given the same weight as resolute ones.
  
  And so on…
  
  De Benoist’s solution is something he calls ‘Organic Democracy’, involving lots of referenda and plebiscites. This would be folkish, based on fraternity rather than liberty and equality, and thus more similar to the ancient Athenian democracy (something he doesn’t mention, however, is that the democratic faction in Athens fanatically pursued a ruinous fratricidal war with Sparta, whereas the artistocratic faction wanted peace).
  
  His book was written in 1985, and I think things are too far gone now for de Benoist’s folkish democracy to put things right. It could never be implemented under the currect system, anyway. The closest equivalent, populism, has had little real success against the entrenched deep state.
  
  Something more drastic will be required…
  
  But if the crisis Western Man now faces is overcome, a future system of government will evolve organically, and will doubtless contain mixed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, just as it has throughout our history.
  
  
• 
  Mansoor

  
  
  “La démocratie c'est la révolution couchée, et qui fait ses besoins dans ses draps”
  —Léon Daudet
  
  حقیقت این است که در دموکراسی اصل اساسی نه اکثریت مردم است و نه آرای مردم. نه انتخابات است و نه وکیل فرستادن به مجلس. اساس اصل مشارکت است. مشارکت به معنای شرکت جستن است و غرض از آن این است که فرد به تجربۀ شخصی، خود را عضوی از جماعت و جزئی از کل بداند و نقش فعالی را که در این‌گونه تعلق و وابستگی مستتر است به درستی ارائه کند
  
  مشارکت سیاسی فقط محدود به امر مشارکت در انتخابات نیست. باید مردم هرجا که دستشان می‌رسد بتوانند تصمیم بگیرند و هر دفعه که نمی‌توانند، باید قادر باشند موافقت یا عدم موافقتشان را اظهار کنند
  
  برخلاف دموکراسی لیبرال و شکل‌های ظالمانۀ «دموکراسی توده‌ای» باید به تصوری از حاکمیت مردم بازگشت که مبنای آن تاریخ مملکت و دموکراسی واقعی باشد
  
  دموکراسی باید بنای خود را نه بر پایۀ حقوق فردی افراد بی‌ریشه بلکه بر مبنای اصل شهروندی بگذارد. اصل شهروندی تعلق فرد را به مردم، یعنی به یک فرهنگ، یک سرنوشت و وحدت سیاسی که در داخل آن سرنوشت مردم شکل می‌گیرد، تصدیق و ابرام می‌کند
  
  به یاد بزرگ نادرزاد که این کتاب را به فارسی ترجمه کرد، ولو کسی نخواندش
  
  
  Image: Frédéric Sorrieu, Universal male suffrage given by Ledru-Rollin, 1850.
• 
  Markus

  Alain de Benoist võrdleb oma raamatus antiikset kreeka demokraatiat, mida ta peab tõeliseks demokraatia vormiks kus tähtsaim on kodanik kui ''inimene'', tänapäeva liberaalse demokraatiaga (mida ta peab üleüldse vastuoluliseks sõnapaariks). Raamatus tuleb välja asjaolu, et demokraatia kui rahva võim, rahva võimalus kaasa rääkida poliitikas, on Euroopa tsivilisatsiooni algupäevadest saadik kuni Prantsuse revolutsioonini mingil või teisel vormil eksisteerinud.
  Kokkuvõtteks leiab Alain de Benoist, et orgaaniline demokraatia (mis baseerub etnosel ehk rahvusel või rassil ning seega ka kodakondsusel) on ainukene tõeline demokraatia vorm, mis teeniks tõeliselt rahva huve või kehastaks endas seda Prantsuse revolutsiooni ideaali nagu vendlus kui teised 'demokraatia vormid' (Liberaalne demokraatia ja 'populaarne demokraatia' ehk otsedemokraatia pmst) kuna orgaaniline demokraatia põhineb rahvuslikul ja rahva suveräniteedil. Seega Alain de Benoist pakub alternatiivina "üks mees, üks hääl", "üks kodanik, üks hääl".
  Alain De Benoist peab liberaalset demokraatiat farsiks ja vastuoluliseks kuna nende definitsioonide järgi on nad juba enda vastandid, üks on rahva suveräniteet, teine põhineb üksikisiku õigustel.
  
  Üleüldse oli väga hea lugemine, väike raamat ja hea tekstiga. Kindlasti soovitan.
  Vabandan, kui minu ülevaates on grammatikavigu, ma ei tahtnud palju 'spoilida' ja kirjutasin selle kell 3 öösel.
• 
  Schedex

  "In theory, therefore, democracy should not be regarded as an anti-elitist-system. It is not elites which it is opposed to, but the way in which these are selected. What regime, after all, does not seek quality in government? If democracy charmed so many spirits, this is partly because it was seen as the best means for organising elite turnover. All the authors for whom democracy implies greater 'virtue' and quality insist on the idea that elites are crucial for its proper functioning.
  [...]
  To this a moral argument may be added: there is little merit in granting freedom of expression to those whose opinions hardly differ from one's own. A similar attitude soon becomes an excuse to grant freedoms only to people of whom we are sure beforehand will not make 'ill' use of them. It means believing that the ruling system is so excellent that once it has been established, we have the right to proscribe all possibilities of choosing a different one. All radical dissent - is thus banned. But can we still call this a democracy?"
• 
  Nick

  De Benoist seems unusual for being associated with the radical right and being pro democracy but what most critics talk about is liberal or representative democracy which if you look at its development came from concessions from sovereignty which over time universal suffrage was grafted onto. At least some of these principles like representative government and due process have late Roman, Christian, and Medieval origins. De Benoist comes from a pagan and Heideggerian perspective and largely criticizes liberalism as an outgrowth of Christianity so one can understand where he is coming from.
  Democracy as understood by Aristotle and Plato was direct and often by lot not primarily election which originally was for magistrates not to delegate sovereignty which was for aristocratic government. De Benoist also is favorable towards Rousseau who criticized enlightenment assumptions and looked back to classical republics to develop an organic conception of a people which admitted of natural inequality between persons but political equality among a people which is properly called ethnocracy. With this conception governments are not based on universal rights or abstract equality since people must have a shared identity distinct from natural law. This kind of direct democracy can only work on a decentralized basis in a homogenous society with a virtuous people though.
• 
  TR

  The analysis of the concept of democracy here is very thoughtful. I would profit from reading it again. It's his best work available in English, I think.
  
  (but who the hell approved that cover design?!)
• 
  yo JP

  Demokracie. Grandiózní, že? Tímhle velkolepým termínem se tu už staletí ohání kdejaký politik ve sněmovně, občan na ulici, diktátor při projevu, nebo opilec ve škarpě - jenže ona ta definice není tak snadná jako vás to naučili papouškovat na základce pár větami z osnov a jak si to lidi malují ve své hlavě. Málokdo ví, co to vlastně znamená. Ale každý to používá jako jasně formulovaný pojem. Stejně jako manželství, které mimochodem taky bylo "znormováno" do své podoby za určitým důvodem, za vším vlastně můžete hledat nějakou politickou motivaci někoho, kdo si chce namastit kapsu (třeba migranti, jejichž příliv existuje jen protože platit cizincům, kteří vezmou cokoliv za méně, je lepší, než zvýšit plat řadovým občanům-dělníkům, ale jakou to pak bude mít budoucnost pro jeho zemi, to už je nezajímá). Vždycky, když vidím lidi, jak proti něčemu protestují nebo vyjadřují vehementně svůj názor, je jejich protest povrchně zaměřen jen na kritiku současné vlády, na kterou jsou nasraní za to, že něco zdražila a "neudělali jak slibovali" / "mám se teď hůř, než jsem se měl loni" (což je, jak zjistíte po přečtení tohohle, tak nějak jediná možnost toho, co vláda stejně musí udělat). Linie mezi oligarchií a demokracií je mnohdy tenčí, než si myslíte a stejně tak to, co se vlastně za demokracii, nebo její určitou formu a praktiky může považovat. A liberalismus, který si s pojmem demokracie řada lidí zaměňuje jako synonymum nakonec vlastně může být tím, co demokracii ničí. A to říkám jen "to jasné". Protože, víc než cokoliv (a že mě tahle kniha upřímně bavila), tak hlavně mě přiměla přemýšlet nad tím, jak málo obecně člověk ví v rámci čehokoliv ve společnosti, v životě. Máme tu zástupy idiotů, co říkají definice, protože je jejich pohled na realitu zjednodušen. Další dobrý příklad: "Bůh je chlápek v oblacích" - "Letěl jsem letadlem a v oblacích jsem nikoho neviděl, takže vím, že něco jako Bůh neexistuje" (Ne, kámo, ty ani nedokážeš tu ideu Boha definovat, v tom je ten problém). Ano, věci jsou často definovány ne proto, že by tak ve skutečnosti byly, ale protože to je nejjednodušší možný způsob, jak to někomu vysvětlit, aby byl schopen to NĚJAK pochopit. Láska. Víra. Život. Ve všech oblastech je toho řada, co člověk nechápe, protože žije život "zjednodušených definicí", který mu umožňuje pak mít sebevědomí říct "Jdu protestovat proti vládě, protože mi zdražili rohlíky, jsou to svině, co jen hrabou, bla bla bla, ten je šmejd, že může za tohle, tenhle šmejd, že může za tohle", což je ekvivalent malého dítěte, které se snaží prosadit názor, který je zakořeněný v nějaké umělé myšlence, nebo idealizaci něčeho. Bohužel v téhle pozici je většina lidí, chytí se nejjednodušší definice, aby ji mohli zasadit do své "reality", do své "myšlenky" (jsem naštvanej... co s tím udělám? Obviním někoho). Jenže Svět, je tisíckrát komplikovanější, než tohle. Má spousty pohyblivých částic, je krásný i hnusný současně. A jestli je něco, pak ne snadno definovatelný. Jestli si chcete lhát a žít ve své příjemné bublině a prochází vám to... no, neměli byste. Kdo by nechtěl, koneckonců i víra je pro spoustu lidí jakýsi záchranný kruh před hrůzami světa. Pointa je v tom, že kniha jako tahle by se dala napsat na řadu témat. Obecné vědomí lidí je ale někde úplně jinde. Je velmi primitivní a povrchové. Jak komplikované jsou mechanismy, které se okolo nás denně dějí. Jak se vše musí zjednodušovat na úroveň blbců, i třeba v rámci spirituality, protože lidi jsou prostě fakt banda tupých opic, která by to jinak nepobrala a je složitý u nich prosadit ideu, co má smysl, protože by to vyžadovalo kolektivní snahu, ale to jde proti struktuře společnosti, respektive, její chod nedává moc skutečného prostoru (to je ten falešný vstřícný úsměv západního myšlení). Nikoho nezajímá nic víc, než si nějak "splnit nutné" a pak si jen užívat... což ale nikoho nikam nedovede. Reakce je pak jen frustrace, která nemá opodstatnění v realitě. Tahle kniha nejenže demokracii rozebírá v její pravé podobě a zasazuje ji v rámci hutného množství poznámek pod čarou a citací do jakéhosi rámce, který vám pomůže pochopit, že tohle není hraní na písečku, ale i komplexní problém, ale třeba vám pomůže pochopit i proč se řada věcí dnes děje, jak se děje. Text je nahuštěný ale na necelých 150 stranách i velmi k věci, čehož si cením. Athény a Island - jedny z nejstarších demokracií. Taky záleží na tom, jak komunitní je jejich zřízení, menší antická města-státy se nedají srovnávat s dnešním plošným pojetím demokracie. Je to hodně o nuancích a kontextu. Ač je kniha staršího data (1985), skoro to nejde na jejím poselství znát, protože řeší velmi starý, globální pojem... a v tomhle vydání je i tak pořád doplněna o dva další texty, z let 2007 a 2011. Sol Noctis si mě začíná pomalu získávat. Už když jsem v době vydání viděl tu obálku, věděl jsem, že tenhle text mě volá.
• 
  Bry Willis

  I somewhat identify as an anarchosyndicalist, but I often engage with material from all over the political spectrum. I found this book to capture the many problems of democracy, though there were some I felt he missed. In fact, I think I agree with all of his contentions. I've now added to my list, as I've never been a fan of democracy. As he suggests, it's more of a religion than a decent form of government.
  
  I only give this ⭐⭐⭐ because as strong as the critique was, his proposal for the replacement was an admixture of weak tea and magical thinking. I won't spoil the ending, but he tipped his solution hand early and summarised it in the final chapter. I can understand his sentiment, but it exhibits a complete lack of understanding system thinking, social dynamics, and how complex organisms function. I'd have given it ⭐⭐⭐⭐ if he had skipped his solution.
• 
  Laura Crockett

  This tome reminds me of The Feminine Mystique. Why? Because like Friedan's book, de Benoist's book rolls out the issues superbly. Nonetheless, he doesn't have the answers. I found myself agreeing with the issues, and then disagreeing with what he thinks are the remedies for our excessive ideas on how democracies need to operate.
  
  Read the book to get a grasp of what he suggests are the issues with democracy, equality and the post enlightenment world. If you find yourself agreeing with what he suggests are the problems, then read a few other books that suggest a variety of "fixes."
  
  I will write my own book on what I think needs to be done. But I, like Dugan, will only suggest solutions, based on historical models.
  
• 
  Victor

  An eloquently written academic book that criticises, yes, democracy.
  
  The author draws sources from several historical figures that helped philosophise the ideology that we today have all been taught to support, defend and love.
  
  Some very good arguments are made against democracy, including internal contradictions and it’s unbalanced relationship with ‘liberalism’.
• 
  John Smith

  I agree with Greg's review. I found this book negative, mostly critical, while gently begging the questions whether democracy is good and whether anything is truly better.
• 
  Radu

  Although very Franco-centric in its content, de Benoist provides a very sublime criticism of parliamentary democracy in modern western European countries.
• 
  Joe

  This review may contain spoilers, depending how you define spoilers. It's topical.
  Chapters:
  I. The Ancients and the Moderns
  II. A Defence of Democracy
  III. Popular Sovereignty and Pluralism
  IV. The Crisis of Democracy
  V. Towards Organic Democracy
  POSTFACE: Ten Theses on Democracy
  
  In this valuable book, Alain de Benoist lays out a fairly comprehensive look at the arguments around Democracy, in an easily digestable form. Written in 1985, it is striking how familiar the theories sound as I look at the immediate examples that are playing out in 2016. The author presents a history of democracy from its roots in ancient Greece, and draws the lines all the way through to modern times. As he presents four subsequent chapters, comparisons between original and current democracy help frame the readers thinking about why certain elements are problematic, and whether these are inherent issues or things specific to a new market democracy. He looks at a defence of the “cracy” of the “demos” in theory, then discusses the core fundamental of popular sovereignty, and the crisis of how this plays out practically. He closes the book with meaty discussion of a way forward, and a summary of the various observances and theses of democracy.
  
  The book refers constantly to previous writers and seeks to present a holistic view of their writings. De Benoist emphasizes the differences and the agreements between earlier authors, and adds his own valuable insights and conclusions – even when the conclusion is that there is no real resolution to an argument. The Problem of Democracy is absolutely brimming with quotable nuggets – great philosophies and powerful truths. I’ve highlighted my way through the book like a high-school student with poor studying strategies, or like a hungry caterpillar grabbing at every green leaf. It is a beautiful book. My highlights show the sadness and depravity which the author so eloquently, even beautifully recorded. They show stark realities that certain politicians fail to understand, and that our heroes seem to personify.
  
  The title problem and the solution:
  The author deals with problems of opinion polls, whether they represent choice or even the ability to decide, whether narrow wins are even “democratic”, and the well-known issue of voting for the least worst candidate – with the only more dangerous thing is political apathy, which is ‘a real gift to extremism’. The book is riddled with problems as much as it is riddled with hopes. His summary problem is that ‘Democracy is ill because citizens are not giving their vote to politicians from whom they expect a concrete course of action reflecting well-defined commitments’. It’s not insurmountable, but it’s a pretty big problem.
  
  What is the solution, then? There’s the hope of a benevolent dictator, of course. But the author doesn’t focus much on that. He looks broadly and finds a few hopeful observations. A few I’ve already mentioned – breaking silence, participation, referendums – but he also writes that democracy seems to work better in smaller states and republics, like the size of the nation where it was born. In medium and large states, monarchy and despotism seem to dominate, but even there the people can participate – though at greater cost perhaps. Practically, participation is the way of democracy. It’s not the best, but it’s what we’ve got.
• 
  Tommy

  No matter what an organization claims itself to be practising if it ain't participatory and fraternal it ain't real democracy... and since in this world there exists so many different value systems the species as such can never hope to engage in any democracy beyond a very small scale.