The Copernicus Journal of Political Studies 2020

No. 2/2020, pp. 73–83

ISSN 2299-4335
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJPS.2020.015
www.apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/CJPS

Irak li Che dia

Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic

DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS

ABSTRACT
This paper takes a look at the current state of Western democracy and the crises
looming within it. Financialization of the democratic system, evident in the far-
reaching influence of well-funded interest groups; emergence of the new media
platforms that can sway public opinion almost instantly; the growing influence
of digital technology giants due to the vast amount of user data that they pos-
sess; the overall influence of the Internet as an abstract entity; the failure of
the education system unable to cope with modern day challenges – these are
some of the factors that have significantly eroded the Western democracies for
the past several decades. The text uses both discourse and content analysis in
a complementary way. It is the author’s opinion that the factors listed in this
paper indicate that Western democratic regimes are likely to transform into
some forms of oligarchy, authoritarianism or, most worryingly, ultra-modern
manifestations of totalitarianism aided by the array of modern technologies
and methods of mass legitimization.

Key words
democracy, crisis, oligarchy, epistocracy, totalitarianism, modernity,
financialization, debt, Wolin, Arendt, Brennan, Lazzarato, Habermas,
Crouch, Przeworski
74  Ir ak li C h e dia

The aim of this paper is to identify some of the factors which upon careful exami-
nation may point to the present-day crisis of democracy. It is the author’s opinion
that this crisis will eventually lead to a permanent transformation of democracy,
and the text attempts to examine possible transformation paths as well.
Democracy can be defined on two levels. From the political point of view, it
is the process of delegation of power from the people to the governing group via
elections. Yet it is also a specific form of self-understanding, an ethical system
of worldview, an idea about who and in what way can participate in the distri-
bution of power. This article attempts to present both levels of democracy crisis.
The evolution of technology made mass manipulation and persuasion of voters
much easier, thus compromising the process of fair and unbiased delegation
of power through elections. Ideologically speaking, democracy as a concept of
self-rule, participation and ethics has also become problematic due to several
factors: (1) the failure to keep economic and political fields separate when –
one way or another – every level of democratic government is influenced by
state debt; (2) the declining power of national states in the age of transnational
capital when the economy is global, but democracy remains restricted within
the borders of national states; and (3) the seemingly diminishing usefulness
of democracy as an idea for the globalized economy and capital to function
and profit. Global capital markets are now approaching a point when hybrid or
authoritarian political systems are becoming much more attractive in terms of
profit.
Democracy seems to be in crisis – an impression which is strengthening with
each year and each election in the Western world. This situation may have sev-
eral roots. (1) Ultramodern1 societies are polarized like never before. Arguably,
issues that used to be settled through political debate, nowadays seem impossible
to solve by using democratic procedures and reaching consensus by meaning-
ful discussions. Such political reality has almost vanished in the age of instant
information and social media. It seems today that political opponents merely
attempt to vilify each other, presenting their own opinions as the only possible
solutions for specific issues and at the same time attempting to disparage their
opponents’ views. (2) Political ignorance is reaching hitherto unprecedented
heights: more and more voters seem to be swayed by their emotions and personal
sympathies rather than facts, political programs, or their own socioeconomic

1
The author uses the term “ultra-modern society” to describe the society after the
2008 financial crisis, living in the age of instant information, social media, smart gadgets,
accelerated consumerism and conformism.
 DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS  75

interests. (3) The radical left and the radical right have once again attracted
significant segments of population. This process is fueled by the perceived in-
ability of the existing political systems to deal with the real issues. As a result,
radical activists from both sides use this situation to successfully present their
agendas as the only viable remedy for all ills. One might convincingly argue
that history is repeating itself; we may again be on the brink of a great war (no
matter how it might actually manifest itself) and all this is caused by the fatal
failure of the Western democracies to deal with contemporary challenges and
heal themselves.
Financialization of the democratic system, visible in the disproportionate
influence of well-funded interest groups; emergence of new media platforms that
can sway public opinion in an instant; the growing influence of digital technol-
ogy giants due to the vast amounts of user data they possess; the overall influ-
ence of the Internet as an abstract entity; the utter failure of the education system
unable to cope with modern-day challenges2 – these factors engender the feeling
that Western democratic regimes are likely to transform into some forms of oli-
garchy, authoritarianism or, most worryingly, ultra-modern manifestations of
totalitarianism aided by the array of modern technologies and methods of mass
legitimization. Modern technologies and new methods of mass legitimization
have already played a crucial role in the establishment of totalitarian regimes of
the past (Friedrich & Brzezinski, 1967, pp. 4, 16) and it cannot be excluded that
the same will happen again. The transformation of traditional Western systems
has already begun, and it would be counterproductive to ignore the threat of
totalitarianism: it could disguise itself as a reaction against disintegration of
the state; it could become appealing to societies that crave security and stabil-
ity and thus welcome strong leaders. Furthermore, radical implementation of
the concepts of social justice and equality that seem so attractive to the Western
world might lead to the rise of ultra-modern totalitarian regimes as well.

2
It is not the aim of this paper to discuss the failures of the modern education sys-
tem in detail. However, it is no secret that gradual intrusion of business dynamism in
the Western educational system has transformed it into marking-, exams-, skills- and
profit-oriented system, where societal functions of education have inevitably been mar-
ginalized. It has also become highly competitive and polarised, offering much better
education to the rich and the able. Young people also seem to be struggling in the digital
world of today, as found by the OECD PISA survey for 2018 (OECD, 2019). For more on
the impact of the educational system on the society, see e.g. Fareed Zakaria’s book In
Defense of a Liberal Education (2015).
76  Ir ak li C h e dia

One might argue that there is nothing wrong with the need for security and
stability, or for social justice and equality. However, these seemingly straightfor-
ward concepts can be approached in very radical ways. Modern day conservatives
actively use security and stability concerns as the most defining explanation of
their stance regarding family and cultural values, immigration, multicultural-
ism and open border policies. Many political figures that express strong anti-
immigrant and conservative views gain immediate, sometimes fanatical sup-
port of the conservative public. On the other hand, neo-liberal and neo-leftist
political discourse has caused a significant shift in the connotations of the terms
“social justice” and “equality”. Nowadays social justice is frequently understood
specifically as a battle of oppressed minority groups against an oppressor (which
in general terms is often described as the Western patriarchy) and a fight for
political correctness. The understanding of equality also seems to have changed
from the classical “equality of the opportunity” into the notion of “equality of
the outcome”. The bottom line is that neo-conservatives and neo-leftists seem
to have forgotten the lessons of the previous century. As the dramatic events
of the 20th century clearly demonstrated, it is impossible to create completely
stable, secure, homogenous, equal or just societies without far-reaching and fun-
damental changes that may lead to violence, necessitate breaking the resistance
of opposing groups by force and might even result in complete elimination of
entire segments of the population (Aron, 1968, pp. 44– 45).
In the modern world, individuals seem to be increasingly detached from fam-
ily, community and society. It could be supposed that one of the reasons is capi-
talist dynamism, which praises personal gain and success as the ultimate virtue.
Constant promotion of unrestrained consumption also plays a role. This trend
seems to create a society consisting of progressively atomized individuals – as
well as larger, but still atomized groups of individuals – that are easy to manipu-
late, persuade and control. Increasingly atomized groups of activists and various
minorities are constantly requesting more and more rights for themselves – and
only themselves. Ironically, such fragmentation and obsession with privileges
was common in the totalitarian regimes of the past. For example, in a true Lenin-
ist fashion, the countries of the Soviet bloc had hundreds of artificially created
unions and associations representing different professions, each of which was
a minority, for example painters, writers, railway workers, firemen, engineers
etc. Each such group enjoyed different socioeconomic privileges unavailable to
others even though communism was supposed to have abolished privileges and
classes. In the same way, today the modern offspring of the Bolshevik doctrine
of mobilization – various minority and activist groups – enjoy high levels of
 DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS  77

positive discrimination, quotas, exclusive rights, privileges and vocal political

representation, truly giving a fresh meaning to the idea that “all animals are
equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell, 2008, p. 90).
It should be concluded that some of the most evident totalitarian trends in
the modern Western world are already quite alarming: atomization of the soci-
ety, persistent push into overt consumerism, marginalization and demonization
of non-mainstream and “politically incorrect” views, forced self-censorship,
dismantling of historically established welfare policies, formation of excessively
influential financial groups and lobbies, and a very persuasive media propaganda
machine. Such totalitarian tendencies seem to be very dangerous in times when
an unhealthy fusion of politics and rapid advancement of modern technologies
has left large sections of the population unprepared for and defenseless against
innovative methods of propaganda and manipulation.
Many modern authors have raised concerns about the alarming develop-
ments in Western democracies. Political philosopher Sheldon Wolin claims
that the totalitarianism of today is inverted: corporations, private businesses,
rich contributors and other groups of economic interest dominate the modern
state through political donations, endorsements and lobbying. This contrasts
the classical cases of totalitarianism, such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany,
where the state dominated the economy However, Wolin claims that today it
is the economy that dominates the state: the present leaders are not the archi-
tects of the system but its products; instead of keeping the masses in a state of
constant political mobilization, the system tries to demobilize the society and
keep the population in constant political apathy, encouraging them to think that
nothing will change. (Wolin, 2008, pp. 41–68).
For example, when the top ten US banks control more than 60 percent of
all financial assets of the state and their top personnel is employed at key gov-
ernment advisory positions (Lazzarato, 2012, p. 77), there can be hardly any
doubt that economic actors have openly invaded the political and judicial realm,
generating instabilities and inequalities and creating an exceedingly imperfect
democracy in the US (Mann, 2012, pp. 324, 342). It can be argued that, to some
extent, a similar process is occurring in other Western countries.
In his book The Making of the Indebted Man, Maurizio Lazzarato directly
states that financialization of the democratic system has gone so far that
now we are actually dealing with debt economy, an enormous mechanism
created for the sole purpose of managing public and private debt. He claims
that this is the most effective system of exploitation that humankind has ever
78  Ir ak li C h e dia

seen – a system that has created people who will never finish paying their debts,
which are infinite (Lazzarato, 2012, pp. 23, 77).
All the above considerations reveal how much pressure the nation-state-level
politicians are under, regardless of the size of the country. They are elected by
the majority of the public, which demands stability, security, justice, equality and
prosperity. Their election campaigns are funded by financial groups and lobby-
ists who demand tax cuts, lower public spending, flexible market, and labor poli-
cies favorable for investors and big businesses, all of which directly contradicts
the demands of the voters who are actually electing politicians. Politicians are
also pressured by debt obligations to deterritorialized3 financial entities as well
as to other nation states, which effectively influences their policies and hinders
them from fulfilling promises made to the public. The vocal liberal minority and
liberal media, old and new, have lately also gained an upper hand and pressure
politicians to clearly express their views on controversial topics such as religion,
tolerance, minority rights, and immigration. If the politicians fail to appease
the liberal minority and liberal media, or if they have controversial views and
lack broad recognition and/or voter base, they can very quickly get marginalized
and disappear from the public debate, which effectively minimizes their chances
to win elections.
At the same time, radical liberal views, involving blind support of social
justice and identity policies, seem to be in some sense backfiring. Since the neo-
leftist agenda has adopted radical liberal and postmodernist views, divorced
from the real-life struggles of the majority of the public, the working class and
the middle class are being continually lured in the direction of populist right-
leaning movements – hence the overall strengthening of positions by the popu-
list movements in Europe and the US. This leads to stronger polarization and to
a reality where it is impossible to have a constructive political dialog, reach con-
sensus and actually deal with the important issues through political discussion.
Democracy and its future has always been an actively debated subject, with
significant input coming from Jürgen Habermas and Colin Crouch. For ex-
ample, the notion of the public sphere as an integral part of democracy, where
private and public actors can engage in debates relevant to the public interest,
as envisioned in Habermas’ works, explains very well the role and impact of
the media which right now in the age of new and remarkable technologies have
immeasurable influence over the discourse within the public sphere. According

3
The author uses the term “deterritorialized” to emphasize the non-state, offshore
and globalized character of such entities.
 DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS  79

to Habermas, the “refeudalization” of power – i.e. intrusion of powerful entities

such as giant media conglomerates, transnational corporations as well as state
and other political actors into the public sphere – has contributed to the sig-
nificant decline of the public sphere. The emergence of the Internet and new
media has not helped the public sphere as much as expected; it can be argued
that the Internet has considerably accelerated the commodification of informa-
tion and public discourse, while contributing further to the progressive decline
of the public sphere.
Another prominent author, Colin Crouch, writes in his book Post-Democracy
that even though all democratic institutions are still present and active, the en-
ergy and innovative capacity of the political system have shifted to other spheres;
namely to the secret discourse between governments and global corporations.
This type of post-democracy concept is especially useful in discussions on
the financialization of political systems as well as the balance of power between
national level democracies and transnational capital.
Democracy is in crisis and we are witnessing its slow decay. What can be
done or what level of mobilization is needed to reverse the trend remains unde-
termined. However, one thing seems clear: the atomization of society, the fail-
ing education system, the cultural decadence, the growing political ignorance
of voters, the financialization of the democratic system, the invasion of social
structures by advanced technologies and new media – all this will slowly but
surely lead to a failure of Western democracies. It appears fruitless to hope for
a renaissance of democracy in the West. Considering the number of flaws it
currently has, it seems unlikely that the system will heal itself and return to
the golden age of consensus and pluralism.
Adam Przeworski in his recently published book Crises of Democracy ar-
gues that current crises of this system can be traced back to the imposition of
the “Washington consensus” led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
He claims that after World War II the political process was concentrated around
safety nets guaranteed by government, unions and state-driven capitalism,
which made parallel growth of wages and productivity possible. When Reagan
and Thatcher mounted an ideological attack on unions and social programs, it
led to a fall in union membership, wage stagnation and rapid growth of socio-
economic inequalities. This coordinated attack effectively ended the wealth
distribution model, and was followed by decades of political stagnation and
economic impoverishment for many layers of society. Przeworski considers
that the resulting polarization of the political spectrum made it impossible for
opposing parties to reach consensuses and led to many irreversible mistakes
80  Ir ak li C h e dia

made by governments in the US and other Western democracies. Over the years
these processes gradually undermined the credibility of Western democracies
among their disillusioned electorates – and this is the worst part of democratic
regression. It slowly erodes trust, democratic ethics and values, sometimes even
without a visible attack on democratic institutions. Ultimately such regression
may give power to populist authoritarians through fully pluralist and demo-
cratic elections.
Currently, the future of Western democratic system is unclear. However,
there are possibilities of a viable transformation, with the following three most
likely:
1. Oligarchy – transformation of democracy into various forms of oligar-
chy – in which power rests within a small circle of people – has been
an ongoing process for a long time. Nowadays the influence wielded on
modern Western democracies by multinational and local financial groups
and corporations as well as very rich and powerful individuals is greater
than ever. Globalization, consumerism and overall financialization of
the democratic system have prepared a fertile soil for oligarchy to thrive,
so it has a good chance of becoming the dominant political system in
the West. It can be even said that today many states that declare them-
selves as democracies are in fact functioning oligarchies (Gilens & Page,
2014, pp. 564–581), where democratic procedures exist merely pro forma,
allowing people to choose which political elite will hold the reins of power.
However, each new government will face the same temptations, challenges,
debt obligations and global actors as the group that ruled before them. It is
thus very unlikely that the new political elite will have a choice other than
to promote the same policies and solutions; it will probably be susceptible
to the same temptations of corruption, elitism and conformism as the elite
before them, turning democratic procedures and declarations into a mere
device to rotate different political elites in the ruling positions.
2. Epistocracy (rule by citizens with appropriate political knowledge) – as
a variation of an enlightened aristocracy, it could be one of the desir-
able radical changes and possible alternatives to the failing democracy.
It means the rule of the knowledgeable, where political power is legally
distributed according to skill and competence and where this skill and
competence is always checked through a process such as educational and
competence-building exercises, related tests and assessments etc. As Jason
Brennan argues in his book Against Democracy, “epistocracy has emerged
as the main challenger to democracy’s throne” (Brennan, 2016, p. 15).
 DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS  81

He thinks that the choice between these two systems is purely instrumen-
tal and he strongly argues that epistocracy will outperform democracy
and should be implemented without delay. However, Brennan’s claim has
not been sufficiently proven yet. It is also uncertain how resistant epistoc-
racy will be against the same pressures and temptations that have already
corrupted democracy and are unlikely to cease to exist.
3. Some form of totalitarianism – the present polarization of society and
acceptance of radical views on both sides of the political spectrum dis-
turbingly evoke the specters of mob rule and totalitarianism described by
Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. Once again, the ranks of
populist movements on the left and right are being filled with people who
feel marginalized in an increasingly globalized and elitist world. They are
calling for strong leaders, strong nations and responsibility on the one
hand, and for social justice, rights and radical equality on the other; they
distrust the establishment and representative democracy. They prove once
again that democracies function with the rules acknowledged only by
the minority and tacitly consented to by the masses of indifferent people
who, if organized and actively engaged, can completely destabilize func-
tioning democracies (Arendt, 1958, pp. 106–107, 154–156, 312–318). At
the same time it should be emphasized that new forms of totalitarianism
may not necessarily have the same characteristics as the classic totalitar-
ian regimes of the past. It is very unlikely there will be new concentration
camps or Gulags, mass deportations and killings. Nowadays, in order to
effectively demonize, marginalize and exclude someone from the public
discourse, modern left-wingers do not actually need to send undesirable
people to Siberia: it is enough to use mass media and social media criti-
cism, censoring and de-platforming against controversial or so-called po-
litically incorrect individuals or groups. On the other side of the political
spectrum, modern right-wingers frequently call for more security, appeal
to cultural and national sentiments, and methodically, successfully create
an atmosphere of fear not much different from the one that the Gestapo
or the KGB sowed and then efficiently harvested and exploited for various
purposes. It seems that the range of modern technologies together with
new methods of mass legitimization and propaganda provide totalitarian
tendencies with an opportunity to flourish in an entirely new setting, but
still in a very effective way. It needs to be acknowledged that modern man-
ifestations of right- and left-wing totalitarianism have already inconspicu-
ously mobilized masses and engaged large segments of the population.
82  Ir ak li C h e dia

Unfortunately, political and intellectual elites in the West seem to be

actively trying to ride the tides of this mass mobilization, exploit and use
the alluring power of total organization for political and personal gains,
effectively legitimizing the ultra-modern form of totalitarianism.

Out of these three most likely transformations, only one – epistocracy – has
a chance to become a publicly debated option, analyzed in legal context, and
a choice that the elites and the wider public agree upon. It would most definitely
require constitutional changes, large-scale educational campaigns and transfor-
mation of political culture. As for oligarchy and forms of totalitarianism, it is en-
tirely possible to imagine that no actual legal changes may be necessary. Demo-
cratic procedures like voting, debates and division of power will continue to exist
formally, while actual change will happen only in the background. There will be
no meaningful political competition; democratic procedures will be maintained
as a façade, and the main goal of the ruling elite will be to retain power through
manipulated legal procedures or the regular back-and-forth transfer of power
between ideologically compatible elites. The difference between a functioning
oligarchy and totalitarianism will be found on the conceptual level. In an oligar-
chy, power will be retained through external means of control and sometimes
even with the educated consent of the population if the principles of noblesse
oblige are followed by the natural/artificial elites in power 4. In the modern forms
of totalitarianism, classic external means of control like propaganda will be sup-
plemented with internal ones as well. Power will be retained through discourse,
indoctrination, thought control and total organization, hence guaranteeing
ideological hegemony for the wider political and cultural elites alternating at
the seat of power.

REFERENCES
Arendt, H. (1958). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Cleveland: World Pub. Co.
Aron, R. (1968). Democracy and Totalitarianism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.
Friedrich, C., & Brzezinski, Z. K. (1967). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2nd
ed.). New York: Praeger.

4
The author understands a “natural elite” as an elite defined by virtue and talent,
whereas “artificial elites” would be defined by wealth and inherited privileges.
 DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS  83

Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Inter-
est Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3). DOI: 10.1017/
S1537592714001595
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into
a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Lazzarato, M. (2012). The Making of the Indebted Man. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Mann, M. (2012). The Sources of Social Power: Volume 4, Globalizations, 1945-2011. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2019). Young people struggling in digital world, finds latest OECD PISA sur-
vey. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/young-people-struggling-in-
digital-world-finds-latest-oecd-pisa-survey.htm
Orwell, G. (2008). Animal Farm: A Fairy Story. London: Penguin Books.
Przeworski, A. (2019). Crises of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolin, S. (2008). Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of In-
verted Totalitarianism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Young, M. D. (1970). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870–2033: An essay on education and
equality. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Zakaria, F. (2015). In Defense of a Liberal Education. New York, NY: W. W. Norton
& Company.