There is no such thing as "Representative" Democracy

Dispelling a common myth

Democracy is derived of the Greek word Demokratia; a fusion of Demos and Kratos. The demos are “the people” broadly, and Kratos means “power” or “strength.” Democracy, then, is a “rule by the people”–or more literally, a government in which the people hold power. Today, “the people” are a vague notion of general and passive will; something like a “faceless mass.” But Demokratia indicated a government in which “the people” were outright dominant, often to the terror of Aristocrats and Oligarchs.

Direct Democracy

All Greek democracies were Direct Democracies and this did not mean suffrage and voting. The idea that voting makes a Democracy is a very modern idea that serves to primarily benefit the ruling class. To the Greeks, the most important thing in Demokratia was the kleros; the lot or lottery. Through it, all the citizens ascended to many offices, repeatedly and over the course of their life. This was the primary mechanism–not the vote–that made their system “Democratic.” People-power, demos and kratos, was taken literally.

Voting was decisively of secondary importance. It was not used to select who occupied the major offices. Instead, it was used by citizens who already held office for niche purposes. By vote they affirmed decrees, exiled citizens, chose war commanders, and the like. It was a decision-making tool, not a selection-tool.

The Greeks knew that to select an office by a popular vote served only to benefit the prominent. An Aristocrat or an Oligarch. These were the types who had the wealth and name recognition to win. So they anticipated that a Demokratia by the popular vote would secretly be an Aristocracy or an Oligarchy . . . a reasoning we fail to make.

The Aristocrats and Oligarchs repeatedly overthrew Greek Democracy. They fought the people tooth-and-nail in revolutions and civil wars. But some of them were clever, and sought to undermine the Demokratia from inside. These did everything to maintain the appearance of Democracy, while consolidating power and restricting popular access to office. Our elites today are most parallel with this type. 

A grand game! It takes a millionaire, or kissing the ring of a millionaire, to win the small office of a southern backwater, and many times that in the northeast and west. Federal races sometimes cost the networth of a corporation. But to be positioned–to merely be at the right place to beg and plead for this money–requires substantial social standing or slavishness. We graduates of political science all have an ex-classmate who has embarked upon the latter. They have accepted a meager salary as a fundraiser or legislative aide for the mere chance at running for the state senate in ten years. City council and a second job is more likely. But such is the reality of modern “Democratic” politics. Have money or beg for it. And the person you’re begging is an Aristocrat or an Oligarch–just like the Greeks predicted. 

Representative Democracy

Oligarchy by Bo Bartlett

Here we cue the familiar arguments: (1) Direct Democracies are not possible due to population size; (2) Representative Democracies are Democratic because your Civil Rights are enshrined in the law; (3) Direct Democracies might become despotic, so the will of the people needs to be filtered.

The population argument is weakest. For centuries, entire populations have been mobilized for varying purposes and these always relied heavily on the individual motor and motive. A directive was given with instructions and guidance, but each individual still had to think and make countless micro-decisions . . . and sometimes very large decisions. Technology weakens the argument even further. France had referendums with paper. Estonia, Iceland, Taiwan, Madrid and many others, use a computer. It is not that population size makes Direct Democracy impossible, but that the elites do not want it. It was possible before the computer era, and is even easier now. 

To be clear, this is not saying that Direct Democracy ought to be implemented (I myself favor a hybrid) but is instead meant to show that the most popular argument against it is the weakest one, and has real-world counters. Representative Democracy becomes the virtue instead of Direct Democracy, because the latter is allegedly “impossible.”

Now we must pivot to the crux of the issue. Some move the goal post from Direct vs. Representative to the “law,” and assert that what makes a government “democratic” is Civil Rights. The Representatives are the ones who install said Civil Rights, and who defend them. Voting is an important mechanism because should one of the Representatives renege on this, “the people” can remove them. It is a NPC argument that we were all conditioned into, and we are literally watching it fall to pieces in real time. 

Wealth constrains the options that are available to you (see Citizens United v. FEC). This means you must choose between Oligarchs, Aristocrats or someone bootlicking the former. Voting or not, you can only exchange between these three types. But the kicker is that some offices are unreachable by voting . . . like the Supreme Court and many lower courts. A constitutional crisis is brewing right now, because an executive order challenging the 14th Amendment is about to be kicked up to a radical bench that is very politically motivated. What then? Are the judges my representative? Are they protecting my Civil Rights? Can I remove them when I decide they are not? Or do I have to rely on even more “Representatives” (Senators and House Reps) to remove these judges for me?

The very instant that there are Representatives, the government is no longer a Democracy. It is an Oligarchy (rule by the rich) or Aristocracy (rule by a special elite). Representative Democracies are inherently illusory, and the illusion is only believed when things are going well. When crisis brews, when someone or some group appears to lurch the whole thing right or left, we find out how helpless we are. You have freedom only to shuffle elites, and if you call that Democracy, know that the Greeks would be stunned at you.

That Direct Democracies become sometimes despotic is true enough, but there are no modern–only ancient examples of this. Meanwhile, examples of despotic oligarchies, despotic aristocracies and despotic plutocracies are all around us, masquerading as “free.” Hybrids, blendings of Demokratia and Oligarchia were the historical norm of the ancient world. Aristotle himself posits the Polity (or Republic) as the ideal form of government because it blends the passions of the poor and rich together. It was furthermore Machiavelli who argued controversially . . . that it was tension between the multitude and the few that made a Republic secure. 

A Bad Ending?

The worst case scenario is one in which the elites must compete amongst themselves, and balance amongst themselves. This accelerates the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Elements of Direct Democracy are appealing because they reintroduce an ancient situation . . . one in which neither the people nor the elites can fully dominate the other. The vibrant Republic was not the result of harmony, submission to God, reading Plato nor complex social theories–but near perfect tension and balance between competing interests. The Republic was such because the people directly countered against the elite with tangible institutions and power. This is the only practical solution.

But say it all collapses. Say there is in fact a constitutional crisis. Or say all the boomers die. Say that the youth become very organized, and kick Gen X mostly out. We are still structurally locked. Supreme court rulings, district rulings, a two party system, corporations as legal persons, social norms–everything is designed to encourage a continuation of what has been happening, and long after the originators are dead.

A chance, at some point, will arrive. But will the population know what to do with it? Will it be able to cut through its own conditioning, and outmaneuver its own institutions? Will it attempt what’s happening right now, just leftward, restarting the cycle? Or will it seek out perfect tension—the only thing proven to work?