Culture » May 19, 2003

How Much Democracy Is Too Much?

By Slavoj Zizek

Democracy is not merely the “power of, by, and for the people.” It is not enough just to claim that, in democracy, the will and the interests (the two in no way automatically coincide) of the large majority determine state decisions. Democracy—in the way the term is used today—concerns, above all, formal legalism. Its minimal definition is the unconditional adherence to a certain set of formal rules which guarantee that antagonisms are fully absorbed into the “rules of the game.”

“Democracy” means that, whatever electoral manipulation actually takes place, every political agent will unconditionally respect the results. In this sense, the U.S. presidential elections of 2000 were effectively “democratic.” Despite obvious and patent electoral manipulations in Florida, the Democratic candidate accepted his defeat. In the weeks of uncertainty after the elections, Bill Clinton made an appropriately acerbic comment: “The American people have spoken. We just don’t know what they said.” This comment should have been taken more seriously than it was meant, for it revealed how the present machinery of democracy can be problematic, to say the least. Why should the left always and unconditionally respect the formal “rules of the game”? Why should it not, in some circumstances, put in question the legitimacy of the outcome of a formal democratic procedure?

Alternatively, there is at least one case in which formal democrats themselves (or, at least, a substantial portion of them) would tolerate the suspension of democracy: What if formally free elections are won by an anti-democratic party whose platform promises the abolition of formal democracy? (This did happen, among other places, in Algeria a few years ago.) In such a case, many a democrat would concede that the people were not yet “mature” enough to be allowed democracy, and that some kind of enlightened despotism whose aim is to educate the majority to become proper democrats is preferable.

Following this rhetorical line of attack, the gradual limitation of democracy is clearly perceptible in attempts to “rethink” the present situation in the aftermath of the Iraq war. One is, of course, for democracy and human rights, but one should “rethink” them. A series of recent interventions in the public debate give a clear sense of the direction of this “rethinking.” In The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria, Bush’s favored columnist, locates the threat to freedom in “overdoing democracy,” i.e., in the rise of “illiberal democracy at home and abroad.” He draws the lesson that democracy can only “catch on” in economically developed countries: If developing countries are “prematurely democratized,” the result is a populism which ends in economic catastrophe and political despotism.

No wonder, goes this theory, that today’s economically most successful Third World countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Chile) embraced full democracy only after a period of authoritarian rule. The immediate lessons for Iraq are clear and unambiguous: Yes, the United States should bring democracy to Iraq, but not immediately. There should first be a period of five or so years in which a benevolently authoritarian, U.S.-controlled regime would create proper conditions for the effective functioning of democracy. This regime will not tolerate, for example, a democratic desire to nationalize oil revenues, or to apply sanctions to Israel, or to refuse global free trade schemes. We know now what bringing democracy means: It means that the United States and its “willing partners” impose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if and when a country is ripe for democracy.

———————

As for the United States itself, Zakaria’s diagnosis is that “America is increasingly embracing a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness as the key measures of legitimacy. … The result is a deep imbalance in the American system, more democracy but less liberty.” The remedy is thus to counteract this excessive “democratization of democracy” by delegating more power to impartial experts insulated from the democratic fray, like the independent central banks.

Such a diagnosis cannot but provoke ironic laughter: Today, in this alleged “overdemocratization,” the United States and Britain started a war on Iraq against the overwhelming will of the rest of the planet (and, in Britain’s case, its own people). And are we not, all the time, witnessing the imposition of key decisions concerning global trade agreements by “impartial” bodies exempted from democratic control? Even more fundamentally, is it not ridiculous to complain about “overdemocratization” in a time when the key economic and geopolitical decisions are, as a rule, not an issue in elections? For at least the past three decades, what Zakaria demands is already fact. What we experience today are acrimonious splits over ideological lifestyle issues, where fierce debates rage and choices are solicited (on abortion, on gay marriages, etc.), but where basic economic policy is presented as a depoliticized domain of expert authority. The proliferation of “overdemocracy” with its “excesses” of a “culture of complaint” is ultimately the front whose backside is the silent, sturdy weaving of economic, corporatist logic.

The obverse of the same tendency to counteract democratic “excesses” is the open dismissal of any international body that would effectively control the conduct of war—which might, after all, be necessary from time to time to enforce the economic agenda. Exemplary is Kenneth Anderson’s recent New York Times Magazine essay, “Who Owns the Rules of War?” whose subtitle makes the point unambiguously clear: “The war in Iraq demands a rethinking of the international rules of conduct. The outcome could mean less power for neutral, well-meaning human rights groups and more for big-stick-wielding states. That would be a good thing.”

The main complaint of this essay is that, “For the past 20 years, the center of gravity in establishing, interpreting and shaping the law of war has gradually shifted away from the military establishments of leading states and toward more activist and publicly aggressive NGOs.” This tendency is perceived as unbalanced, “unfair” toward the big military powers who intervene in other countries, and partial toward the attacked countries—with the clear conclusion that the militaries on the “big-stick-wielding states” should themselves determine the standards by which their actions will be judged.

This conclusion is indeed consistent with the U.S. rejection of the authority of the International Criminal Court over its citizens. And it spells out a bitter reality: that a new dark age is descending upon the human race.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Democracy “Its minimal definition is the unconditional adherence to a certain set of formal rules which guarantee that antagonisms are fully absorbed into the “rules of the game.””

  Who, besides you, has established this definition?  How have you arrived at this definition and can you support it?

  Posted by Nus on May 21, 2003 at 10:47 AM

  predictably, the first comment is concerned with establishing definitions, rules of the game, respect for the procedure… precisely the things that zizek was talking about in respect to the amerikan formal legalism, or today’s democracy.

  perhaps other amerikan readers will concede a few flaws, but also point to the greatness of checks and balances, the long tradition of civil liberties, all the while passionately condemning mr bush (son of a bad man) and eagerly awaiting the next election to vote against him.

  other liberal-minded readers still may even recognize that mr bush is not the problem, and that the next elections cannot undo what amerika has unleashed on its continent and across much of the world.

  yet that assumes that the amerikan liberals would actually desire to undo the exploitative power system of which they are an integral part.  it is far more likely that they would rather “move on”.org and “win without war.” in that modest goal, they have the overwhelming odds of success.  good luck fellas

  Posted by bojinka on May 21, 2003 at 11:29 AM

  “the first comment is concerned with establishing definitions”

  Actually the story opens by alleging this definition.

  You do realize that one cannot converse with anyone other than oneself without established definitions of terms?

  Do you mean anything in particular by “liberal-minded” or does that terms apply to Bush?  Is that because you have defined the term to your satisfaction?  Would you deny me the same?

  Established spelling works best too.  Did you know that you misspelled America?

  Posted by Nus on May 22, 2003 at 12:54 PM

  thank you for taking one more step toward what is really the most crucial discussion in these times.  Even at the time of Ameica’s establishment it was recognised that a majority could constitute a tyranny just the same as a monarchy or an oligarchy could.  That is the background of our constitution and it is the reason that the constitution is the most important element of our governmental structure.  In my lifetime I have seen the constitution scorned and eroded by every type of politician and official in the system.  The guarantee of due process has been turned in to a mockery of itself and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness have lost all meaning.  Religious freedom tramples all over the concept of not establishing a state religion.  Very small minorities have been responsible for atrocities like the war on drugs, the war on guns and the war on immigration not to mention the wars on other people all over the world based on their political and business preferences.  I personally wish that the focus would switch from establishing democracies to researching more foolproof constitutional values that would get the governments of the world out of our homes and keep them away from our thoughts.  I believe that I heard that the European union has now taken up just this line of research.  Strange that it would come at a time that the new world order folks are criticizing them for being old fashioned.

  Posted by lars on May 27, 2003 at 4:45 PM

  Today, I ran across Zakaria’s prominently placed, brisk selling book “Illiberal Democracy” at the bookstore.  I was intrigued with all the praise from people as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Peter Jennings. A brief glimpse at its contents was enough to disgust me! Zacaria cloaks his utterly reactionary preference for an authoritarian, corporatist technocracy in the thesis that such elite-enforced discipline is essential to making democracy possible.  A truly Orwellian idea if there ever were one, on par with the notions that “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery.”

  On another note, I saw that his critique of American religion was absurdly vague and sweeping in its assessment of a very complex reality of which I doubt he has much direct knowledge. While his clear dislike for Christian fundamentalism may superficially mimic the substantial critiques of it and other facets of right wing populism that have been offered by political left, it differs in that Zacaria clearly is full of profound contempt for popular movements per se.

  I am deeply grateful to know that Zizek shares my revulsion to this “intellectual"--who perfectly fits Chomsky’s description of a statist reactionary, all the while he attempts to position himself at the political center.
  

  Posted by Mike on May 31, 2003 at 11:35 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.

Also featured Operation Desert Mirage
Bursting Bubbles
What’s Next

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!