What We Call Democracy and What It Could Be: A Post-Collapse Path to Freedom
What We Call Democracy and What It Could Be: A Post-Collapse Path to Freedom
Capitalist quasi-democracy serves to maintain class dominance and pacify the masses. Let us examine one way to end the ideological monopoly and restore liberty.
Try to imagine, just for a moment, a system of governance not based on majority rule and elected representatives. What comes to mind?
Sure, images of autocratic leaders and violent dictators ought to pop up. Terrorizing their subjects and doing everything in their power to prolong their uncontested rule. Or of kings and queens sitting on golden, gem-adorned thrones, wearing crowns worth more than most of us earn in a decade, ruling and deciding at will, their powers supposedly granted by the gods themselves.
There are other possibilities. Valid alternatives. Ways of decision-making far more democratic, just, and fair than what we currently think of when we talk about ‘democracy.’ Our capitalist quasi-democratic systems are deeply flawed and highly susceptible to outside influences such as corporate lobbying and corruption. It’s not a flaw in the design, it’s a feature.
A sociocratic system, on the other hand; one based on mutual consent and the political involvement of all, rather than the ‘dictatorship of the many’ — which somehow always results in a dictatorship of the few — might be a better fit. A system proven in the past, with the potential to make us free again.
The propaganda of democracy
Our supposedly democratic and free systems are far more authoritarian than most of us were led to believe. Almost all Western governments are based on some form of ‘representative democracy,’ whereby elected officials speak and act on behalf of the general public. Power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, who then enjoy little accountability to the people for a set number of years. In most cases, we do not even elect individuals, but rather political parties, which are free to choose someone from within their own ranks to wield power.
In some countries, there are effectively only two parties to choose from, both of which are primarily concerned with serving corporate interests while pretending (and failing at that) to represent distinct philosophies and the will of the people. In truth, almost all modern democracies offer the following choice: capitalist party #1, capitalist party #2, and sometimes, if you’re lucky, capitalist parties #3 and #4.
The system is broken by design. It’s not just susceptible to corruption (and its curiously legal form, lobbyism), but rather defined by it — permeated through and through by the capitalist agenda of profit and growth. Nepotism, careerism, political family dynasties, corruption, self-interest, greed, and a troubling lack of diversity regarding age, sex, and especially social class are not flaws but features. We are, in fact, mostly governed by wealthy and old white men. This is true not only of the US but almost all Western governments.1
Those men, and they are often the very same ones throughout decades, are unconcerned with ensuring a prosperous future for younger generations. They have no interest in stopping the climate crisis, building a sustainable economic system, increasing happiness, or putting an end to poverty, hunger, and inequality which are all thriving around the globe. Their only interests lie in self-enrichment, power, and the preservation of the status quo at all costs. Our modern ‘democracies’ serve merely as a tool for the continued dominance of one social class above all others: the uncontested rule of the modern bourgeoisie.
You have no choice and you have no freedom. There’s none to be had. Welcome to capitalism’s (golden) cage:
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest
Some political scientists describe modern ‘democracies’ as a type of oligarchic rule — a form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. As such, they represent a sort of middle ground between dictatorships (the rule of one) and true or direct democracies (the rule of the people). But how does one define ‘true democracy’?
One way through which the people could rule directly (and without the need for corruptible intermediaries and a party system that promotes narcissistic personalities and political careerism) is the type of direct democracy partly employed in countries such as Switzerland. Thereby, certain policy decisions are left to the general populace, who can freely and directly vote on them. This unquestionably constitutes a vast improvement over the usual parliamentarism and political bickering, also significantly reducing, albeit not eliminating, the susceptibility to corruption and corporate interests.
However, no nation on earth practices complete direct democracy. In Switzerland, only certain policy decisions such as constitutional amendments mandate direct referendums. In addition, citizens can launch popular initiatives and call for votes on new laws and certain international treaties.2 This all does not make Switzerland a direct democracy. Rather, direct citizen participation is only one component of what overwhelmingly remains a representative democracy, in which most power is invested in a few individuals. Furthermore, and here it all breaks down, only Swiss citizens are eligible to vote, which excludes around 24% of the population, who have no say whatsoever in what happens in their own country. And, in recent decades, voter turnout for federal elections has been hovering just slightly above 40% on average.3
The Swiss political system is an improvement, to be sure, but it does in no way represent a transfer of power from the ruling class to the general populace. Capitalist interests and corporate lobbyism remain very much a fundamental component of Swiss politics. Their highest mandate was, and is, bailing out banks and corporations with tax-payer money.4 Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Today, almost all democracies practice some form of representative parliamentarism. Is this truly the best system of governance? The culmination of thousands of years of political and social progress? Or does it merely serve as a convenient tool for those in power to stay in power? — a vehicle for capitalist interest groups and corporations to put their hands into and not only influence but define legislation and impose discourse.
Many will argue that, while capitalist democracy is flawed and has many problems and issues, it’s still the best system available. We’ve talked about this ‘capitalist realism’ in much detail before:
In most Western minds, bringing up communist or anarchist ideas is met with ridicule and contemptuous bemusement. The ‘Red Scare’ and decades of propaganda have done their work on most of us. Well, today, let us briefly investigate one possible alternative to capitalist quasi-democracy. No conversation should be off limits, no idea too radical. Sociocracy and democratic consent could be the way forward.
Sociocracy and consensus democracy
The teachings of 19th-century American sociologist Lester Frank Ward laid the groundwork for modern sociocratic ideas. Ward opposed the dominant system of majority vote, which he saw as ineffective and harmful. It ‘fosters emotional and irrational political competition that obstructs an objective handling of issues,’ he argued. He (incorrectly, so far) predicted that democracy would eventually evolve into a more advanced form of government. One that debates issues on a more scientific and objective basis and reaches conclusions by consensus. A system of governance he termed sociocracy.
In the mid-20th century, Dutch educator Kees Boeke and his wife Beatrice Boeke-Cadbury further developed these ideas and put them into practice. In the Netherlands, they established the first school based on sociocratic principles. The school, which stands in the city of Bilthoven, is operational to this day.5
Boeke and his wife viewed sociocracy as a profoundly transformative system based on the equality of all individuals. Unlike the common interpretation of democracy, this equality is manifested not through the principle of ‘one person, one vote,’ but rather through a group of individuals reasoning together until a consensus is formed that is satisfactory, or at least acceptable, to all its members.
“Only when common agreement is reached can any action be taken — quite a different atmosphere is created from that arising from majority rule.”
Kees Boeke
The Boekes defined three fundamental principles, upon which their sociocratic system rests:
The interests of all members must be considered, and the individual must respect the interests of the whole.
No action can be taken without a solution that everyone can accept.
All members must be ready to act according to these unanimously made decisions.
The limitations of such a system supposedly become immediately apparent. While this type of consensus democracy might work in the context of size-limited groups in which everyone knows and trusts each other, you might argue, its application on larger scales appears idealistic and questionable at best.
How could these noble principles ever be translated into large-scale political decisions affecting thousands or millions? How would one apply them on scales spanning cities or even nations?
As so often, the answers are to be found in history. Sounds unlikely? Well, rest assured that people far smarter than me and you have thought about these things and examined them on a scientific basis, gathering evidence for decades. The limitations are mostly in our heads — but more on that later. First, let us discuss what the Boekes came up with.
Consensus on a grand scale
The Boekes did consider the issues involved in expanding sociocratic principles unto larger scales and came up with a few ideas that were then further developed by thinkers such as Gerard Endenburg. In essence, they solved the problem as follows:
A sociocratic system may work well on a local level, they established. Over time, trust between group members would grow, and people would be compelled and incentivized to care about their neighbors and fellow citizens. Political participation would become a daily occurrence, rather than something accomplished by voting once every couple of years. As time progressed, so would the people’s political literacy and their corresponding systems of sociocratic organization, which would remain open to change and adaption at all times.
For the next step, these principles would have to be applied on a larger scale, say a city. At this point, representation becomes unavoidable, the Boekes argue. To solve complex large-scale problems affecting multiple neighborhoods, representatives from these local communities would have to be selected, who would then form a higher level of sociocratic organization. This could, in theory at least, extend all the way to national and international levels of cooperation.
The two main differences to our current systems of semi-democratic representation would be that (1) these ‘higher levels’ would also apply sociocratic principles and decision-making by consensus, and (2) representatives would be chosen on a case-to-case basis and could be recalled at will. There’d be no multi-year terms of office, no abuses of powers, very limited susceptibility to lobbying and corruption, and no authority invested but the one granted for this one specific issue. Representatives would be directly accountable for their actions, merely acting as conduits for the will of their communities. Any one individual could be recalled at any time and for any reason the people deem appropriate.
By applying these methods, there would be no way for a coalition of several members to impose their will upon the rest of the group. No way through which a however slight majority could dictate policy. Every point of view would have to be considered, every fact and opinion taken into account, every community involved, until, finally, a consensus is formed. The ‘dictatorship of the many’ — and the few — would become a thing of the past.
What is utopian? — The constraints are in our heads.
Still, even by imposing all these limitations, representatives and the higher-level groups they form would be granted a certain, albeit temporary, level of power. While most authority would be conceded to local communities, hierarchies and top-level decision-making would still exist. Communists could be entirely happy with such an arrangement — after all, it takes some supposedly fundamental human attributes and Marxist realities into account — but many anarchists and those who argue for ‘absolute’ freedom would likely not.
While even a flawed sociocratic, communalist system, such as the one we very roughly lined out above, would compose the kind of deep and fundamental shift in socioeconomic organization not seen since the advent of capitalism, one could take it even further. Why not let our imaginations run wild for a moment?
Under a sociocratic (or communist, if you want) system, local communities could continue to strengthen and develop their self-governance, thereby assuming more and more authority and independence over time, until eventually taking complete ‘ownership’ of the means of production and dissolving the very concept of a large-scale nation-state. Aided by automation and technology perhaps, communities could turn into economically self-sufficient communes, not reliant on one another but cooperating on common problems.
Taken to its extreme, such an arrangement — whatever you want to call it — would constitute and comprise an entirely new outlook on life and what it means to be human. It could comprise a return to community, purpose, and harmony with nature. It would mean the end of capitalism and its continuous, relentless exploitation of human lives and their surroundings.
Is this all incredibly utopian, naive, and unrealistic? Perhaps, not.
And at this point, we return to history.
Once you rise above the propaganda of development and progress, and the ideologies of either ‘the noble savage’ or the ‘life-before-modern-times-was-constant-suffering-hypothesis,’ it becomes apparent that people have struggled with questions such as this one for millennia. And often they’ve come up with creative, ingenious ways of governing and organizing social experience that need not involve any type of coercion or strict hierarchy.
As Graeber and Wengrow demonstrate in their revolutionary The Dawn of Everything, these quite often spanned cities of hundreds of thousands and more. They spanned large territories, diverse peoples, and multitudes of cultures. History is full of such examples, one just need dare to look. When we think of history, and that is all we learn in school, we think of ‘grand civilizations’ such as Egypt or Rome, celebrating their monuments while forgetting about the deeply authoritarian structures they depended on — slavery, imperialism, the subjugation of women, and a disposable workforce. Those were civilizations of and for the few. We forget about the civilizations of the many, for they are not as apparent in grandiose monuments and statues.
I’m not a historian or anthropologist, so I cannot do this topic any justice. If you have any interest in breaking the imposed limitations to our collective imagination, then I urge you to read The Dawn of Everything. And realize what, indeed, is possible. Yes, modern times are unique in technological sophistication, but the people remain the same. We are the same.
And once a system collapses, the possibilities become endless.
I’m author, writer, and activist Antonio Melonio, the creator of Beneath the Pavement. If you enjoyed this piece, please consider becoming a paid subscriber here on Substack or over on Patreon. It’s the best way to support Beneath the Pavement and help me put out more and higher-quality content.
If monthly contributions are not your thing (I understand), you can also leave me a tip or some coffee money over on PayPal. Thank you.
Sources and further reading
David Graeber and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything.
Learn and Share Sociocracy with the World — Sociocracy For All
Sociocracy and Anarchism: Neither Gods nor Masters, but Systems and Structures — Sociocracy For All
Soziokratische Demokratie • Freiheit und Gleichheit garantieren (sociocracy.info)
What Exactly is Sociocracy? A Toolkit for Agile Organizations (holaspirit.com)
Gender Statistics Database | European Institute for Gender Equality
This is how Switzerland’s direct democracy works | World Economic Forum
Direct Democracy | Discover Switzerland