The Limits of Democracy

and what we radicals should do about it

The limits of what we call democracy are not hidden to socialist activists — not that it’s only socialist activists who see a problem, Liberals as far back as John Stuart Mill brought up the tyrannical nature of democracy making several mentions to the ‘tyranny of the majority’. This ‘tyranny’ exercised itself by imposing moral rules on the entire population, whether they had personally agreed to it or not. Who you can marry or sleep with, whether or not recreational drugs are legal, decriminalized, or are subject to extrajudicial action (as in the Philippines), if abortions should be permitted, are all ways in which a state imposes itself on personal liberty and freedom of choice.

For socialists, however, this is but one of the problems democracy presents. The other, and more important problem, is whether or not democracy, as we know it, is even democratic at all!

Lenin once said that democracy is nothing but having the right “To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament” not simply because of the moral/legislative power that is possessed by the state, but because Lenin knew that the government cannot truly represent the wishes of the people so long as it was governed under capitalist principles — that is, so long as wealth accumulation under global competition was the concern of the state. Some hold the hopeful stance that governments can and will carry out the ‘will of the people’ as soon as we elect the right people into government, but this is wishful thinking as the limits of implementing the ‘will of the people’ will always be set by the functioning of the economy. That is to say that the government will always be beholden to business.

There is also the more philosophical question of what constitutes a democracy? Today's concept of democracy developed as a way to end the rule of kings and their unfettered control of power and legislation. The idea was simple, a people should have an equal say in how it’s being governed and it should all be governed in the same way — not based on the will and prejudices of one person. but this leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Is democracy something that is practised once every election cycle? Is it nothing but ticking a box in a ballot and then stepping away and letting the gears grind? If we agree that representational democracy is what democracy really is, what does a representative democracy look like? Does it have an electoral college? Is it first-past-the-post? Is it proportional? Some of these preserve the concept of one person one vote better than others, others create more pressure on how a person should vote as to make their vote count at all. Or should democracy be direct through the use of referendums?

Finally, there is the question of what should be determined democratically and what shouldn’t? Currently, as soon as we walk into work all sense of democracy is lost. We have no say in the work we do, how it’s done, and who should be responsible for it — that is who should be our boss. Even rights considered sacred under democracy, such as freedom of speech, is increasingly restricted by work with the use of social media policies determining what we can and cannot write about on social media so long as we are an employee, and therefore a representative of the organization.

The Obsession

With all these limits of democracy, most of us still hold firm that it is still the best system available to us, or if not, hold a view similar to that of Winston Churchill who said “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

Our obsession with Democracy has built itself into a morality. How many of us have heard of a ‘duty’ to vote? Some countries have even implemented compulsory voting laws even though that idea seems to go completely against the freedoms secured by democracy. If some of us chose to exercise our freedom and chose not to vote, we are quickly reminded that there are those who are fighting for the freedoms we take for granted and are dying to be able to vote. This may be so, but this moral stance doesn’t do away with all the problems democracy presents.

The Radical Problem

The problematic nature of democracy under capitalism has left socialist activists in a bit of a pickle. Should we or should we not participate in democratic politics?

The answer here depends on what kind of socialist you speak to. Democratic socialists have no problem participating in parliament — their rationale is that democracy has delivered us a nonviolent and nonrevolutionary path to power if we play our cards right we can establish socialism without a drop of blood! Historically this has proven to be false. Indeed as soon as social-democratic candidates do get the majority they have either abandoned the ideal of socialism altogether and/or have used their power to crush their more radical compatriots.

Communists, on the other hand, are split. Some believe that participation in parliamentary politics is necessary. This involvement is not because they believe that it is a route to power, but that involvement in electoral politics provides a good platform and helps spread propaganda. Lenin, on participation in elections, said: “participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses.”

Digital poster from the RCP shared on Facebook

Other Communists, including some strains of Anarchism, are hostile to participating in elections at all. The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of Canada calls for the need to “dismantle the framework [of democracy and elections] and remake it. Lasting change and liberation cannot come by begging the ruling class for scraps once every four years.” calling for nothing short of “Revolutionary action NOW!”.

As true as the RCP’s observations about participating in democracy may be, radical socialists, do need to face the music and realize that revolutionary action is not going to take place simply because democracy is flawed.

It is worth clearing up here, in the event that it is not yet apparent, that the radical socialist stance is not against Democracy itself. Indeed the socialist critique is of democracy under capitalism and that it is not democratic enough. Socialist across the spectrum call for more democracy and for democracy to be used in every aspect of governance. Not only is democracy prefered, but according to Rosa Luxemburg, it is “necessary and indispensable to the working class. It is necessary to the working class because it creates the political forms (autonomous administration, electoral rights, etc.) which will serve the proletariat as fulcrums in its task of transforming bourgeois society.”

Exit Left

What is to be done then? If we cannot just push for revolutionary activity since, as Lenin points out, the masses are still “ imbued with bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices” are we confined to participating in a system which we find unethical? Or should we not vote even if voting can bring someone into power that can make a change for the good for the general population?

The fact is that one can do both. That is, one can vote, as an individual, and campaign for the establishment of a democratic system that is more representative and direct. What would this look like? It wouldn’t look like the RCP’s campaign that discourages people from voting — an individual choice that people are free to make. But radical socialist organizations can build on the political momentum generated by elections not to put forward their own candidates, as Lenin would have us do, but to utilize election techniques such as canvasing to enlist people in participating in alternative forms of government that undermine current structures of power. By using this momentum to build citizen committees that aim to deal with community issues directly, independently, and more democratically from established state structures that, as the RCP has stated, “most people loathe … and recognize … [is] against them, even if subconsciously.”

The key here is in recognizing that voting itself is an atomized activity and that it is only by shifting our thinking from ethical questions of the individual (should I vote in an unethical system?) to that of collective alternatives (what can we be doing that has a stronger material and political impact instead of voting?) can we escape this apparent paradox.