Participatory Politics in a Democracy

Is "democracy" the perfect forum for citizen participation?

A Multipart and Ongoing Investigation Into “Democracy.”

Democracy is often idealized as the perfect forum for participatory politics -- yet political democracy creates a barrier to civil engagement.

That barrier is called tyranny.

Democracy -- left unchecked by republican restraint -- is the seedbed for dictatorship.

This is because of human nature.  Most people are wired to think short term.  And in democracy politicians inevitably cave to the dependent appeals of the shortsighted masses.  As a result the masses feel vainly vindicated in their appeal, while politicians feel righteous in their opinion.

In this way democracy is politically incestuous as it is dangerous.  Democracy is dangerous because this combination of vanity and self-righteousness creates a weaponized and unflappable pride in the mob.

Politicians, for example, exploit this excessive pride to mobilize the arrogant masses against any and all dissenters.  Hitler, for example, used proud German nationalists to destroy all opposition.  Likewise leftist elite use a special form of prideful anti-pride to a similar effect. By convincing ordinary people they’re permanently oppressed the collectivist elite can mobilize pride in destroying the so-called opposition.

This is, of course, not meaningful participation in politics but the very opposite.  Political democracy disallows for democratic participation because people can only participate insofar as they’re willing to cave to the usually violent or destructive demands of the mob.

In other words in a political democracy citizens can only truly participate insofar as they’re willing to lie, harass, bully, destroy, and riot.

A republic, on the other hand, best allows for democratic participation in politics.

In a republic no one interest group ever permanently gets their way and therefore cannot use mob tactics to extinguish and destroy those whom they disagree with.

Likewise in a republic newspapers and other forms of speech aren’t beholden to the masses.

This allows otherwise marginalized individuals to stand apart from the many and express their ideas without fear of retaliation.  Thus more different people can say more different things in a republican society than what “democracy” can ever offer.  

And if we want our republic to retain this superb tolerance for democratic speech then we too must, indeed, speak and speak candidly.  For without the great and thoughtful speech of philosophical republicans we will be inevitably damned to a dumb and despairing democracy lead by tyrannical presidents.

Zigmund Reichenbach holds a M.A. in Philosophy from West Chester University.  You can find him commenting on news stories of national and state interest at his Facebook page Zigmund Reichenbach -- Commentator or you can follow him on Twitter @zreichenbach1.  Additionally you can find episodes of the weekly Sunday podcast that airs via Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter at this link here. 

To support the creation of articles like these visit our Patreon here.