Is Democracy Obsolete?
Not yet, but maybe it will (and should) be soon
Democracy is under attack on several fronts. Texas might be trying to start a civil war, fascists have a strong presence in government, and the chaos in Congress is causing ripple effects in foreign policy. While the economy is doing well, a lot hangs in the balance as we approach an election, possibly the last election, that could mean a choice between the continuation of our liberal world order, and the reemergence of fascism on the world stage.
To most people, this is bad news. I’m the first to say that war of any kind is never good. But how should we approach democracy as people who desire a truly different world than the one we have now?
If it weren’t the case that the most powerful alternative to our current systems is a reactionary upswell of hatred and bigotry, I’d be elated at the government’s loss of credibility. As it is, I find myself reluctantly hoping Biden wins another term, because the physical safety of my loved ones could depend on it.
Of course the fascist alternative to democracy is undesirable, and it is worse for a lot of people, but, importantly, not everyone. Liberal democracy is already hell for quite a large number, especially in those parts of the globe to which we outsource the cost of our mode of production.
It also remains the one form of government that hasn't been largely discredited in most of the world. It may eventually succumb to the pressures against it and fall into disrepute. If so, there will finally be space to imagine alternatives.
I think we can let go of democracy. I think we can do better. In fact, I think democracy is one of the last remaining obstacles to living freely.
In her entry for January 20th, Heather Cox Richardson carefully and systematically equates democracy with all the institutions anarchists are eager to see abolished.
After giving context to Trump’s apparent word salad, she says “[t]he attempt to create distrust of large financial institutions is part of a larger attempt to destabilize the institutions of democracy.” That may be true, but aren’t large financial institutions worthy of our distrust? Haven’t they proven that time and again?
She goes on to demonstrate how Trump, his administration, and his supporters are hammering away at the institutions of democracy, namely the banks, the courts, the military, the schools, and the legislature.
If the news media constitutes a fourth branch of government, by providing a veneer of accountability, then it should be treated with the skepticism due the other branches.
If faith in the rule of law is what underpins our democracy, then our democracy is unconscionable to anyone interested in living free from rule.
If public (state-run) education is central to democracy, then democracy is not a system that teaches young people how to live freely and well.
If Congress is the centerpiece of our democracy, then really no more needs to be said; everyone knows what kind of people politicians are, and how absurd it is to say that what goes on in Congress reflects the will of the majority of people in this country.
If this weakening of our institutions threatens the survival of democracy, then I’d say it’s a democracy that deserves to die.
So I think we should take people at their word. In the minds of most people, democracy is a form of government. Ours, in fact. Given this near universal consensus, I think it makes sense for people who espouse radical politics to advance another agenda: the death of this world.
The question of how to approach democracy is hotly debated among anarchists. Some, like David Graeber (a personal hero of mine) reclaim direct democracy as a revolutionary alternative to government. Others, like the CrimethInc collective (how I found anarchy in the first place) take the opposite view that representative democracy is the biggest enemy of our age precisely because it’s the form of government most widely accepted and justified.
We usually distinguish between “representative” democracy (voting for elected officials who make laws) and “direct” democracy (voting on specific non-binding decisions) in the same way we distinguish between communism as a stateless ideal, and communism as the practice of state-capitalism.
We do this for the same reason: because others have taken our ideals of freedom and transformed them into means of domination. This is also why many of us choose to only use the term “anarchy” to describe our vision, since, at least until the rise of anarcho-capitalism in the US, “anarchy” as a term has been very difficult to co-opt.
This piece won’t delve into the particulars of an anarchist alternative to democracy. I understand how that may be frustrating to some (”if you point out a problem, shouldn’t you have a solution in mind?”), but there’s time and space for imagining better worlds.
In fact, the most difficult anarchist alternative is not to advance one. We don’t know what the future will look like, and every blueprint trying to map out its contours usually turns ugly quick. The people who promise certain futures are often politicians, religious leaders, or conspiracy theorists — not folks anarchists are inclined to listen to. And if we spend all our time planning the perfect way forward, we’ll find when we look up that the world has moved on and our plans are obsolete. Practicing what we preach, especially when we’re not sure how it’ll turn out, is the best medicine and the best teacher.
Another layer to anarchist organizing is that we actively try not to recreate the same patterns of domination that we aim to eradicate in the broader culture. This means we try to make decisions without coercion; solve conflicts without courts, police, or prison; become educated without school; and create and share things without money. We are often very successful at these endeavors on a certain scale and in certain places. Little pockets of free living bursting up between the cracks.
We’re on the brink of civil war and fascism is once again ascendant. I am not celebrating either of these things. We might stop the fascist tide before it overflows again, or we might not, in which case the 2030s will likely resemble the 1940s in some gruesome ways. But I don’t imagine fascism will supplant democracy forever. I’m fairly convinced that we will beat fascism again, either now or later, and that when we do there will be a tremendous push to return to the liberal democratic order we have now.
But that’s hardly an improvement. It just shows our lack of imagination and the determination of those in power to remain on top.
I long for world where we have superseded the choice between democracy and fascism. A world where there is room for many worlds, not one universal order, where people are free to meet the staggering challenges of life on their own terms, together.
Thank you for reading Anarchy Unfolds! This publication is entirely supported by my readers. If you liked this post, if you value my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber, so I can devote more of my time to crafting a toolbox of rest and resistance.
Well said! Thank you for your work.