Isn't democracy authoritarian?

[Einkarl]

In a democracy, whether direct or representative, legislation and policy are voted on, the legislation that passes or is rejected is won due to the majority of the electing populous voting in favor for or against it.

Democracy is a system in which the majority rules in favor of the majority. Therefore, the majority gives both rights and restrictions to everyone as they see fit.

In the U.S., for example, rights are guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution gives rights to the citizens through a piece of legislation, that piece of legislation being its self. The majority of the "framers" or "founding fathers" voted upon the creation of these rights unanimously, In other words, you're rights only guaranteed legally by the government, a government in which people engage in democracy and the voters reached a collected agreement on these rights. Were it not because of the constitution, you would have no legal basis for your rights.

Same applies with restrictions. In the U.S. you are also restricted from doing certain actions (drugs,rape,murder,theft, crime etc.). These restrictions were applied by a government who democratically voted that these restrictions were necessary in a society.

Since, you're rights and restrictions are given by legislation passed democratically through the government.
Rights and restrictions that affect every decision you make (from speeding or voicing your opinion freely to murder and exercising your right to assembly).

And since this democratically run government affects your life in every way possible.

Isn't democratic a form of authoritarianism?

The majority looses, and otherwise have no rights unless given to by the majority. Which is fine in my opinion

[xvzc]

"Democracy" is not an abstract term which stands above class, but something which is contextualized in class relations. The question which should be asked is "democracy for who?", the answer lying in which class rules and exerts its dictatorship over another.

[RedSonRising]

There are consensus-based forms of democracy which prevent trends of majority rule (though they are criticized for their inefficiency.) Authoritarian seems to me to solely describe hierarchical institutions, and with an absence of unequal power relations between individuals based on class, race, etc., democracy does not seem to qualify as authoritarian.

I believe this may belong in Learning.

[Veovis]

There are consensus-based forms of democracy which prevent trends of majority rule (though they are criticized for their inefficiency.)

Consensus-based decision making (even modified consensus) only trades majority rule for minority rule.

[RedSonRising]

Consensus-based decision making (even modified consensus) only trades majority rule for minority rule.

In a sense, yes; but I would use a different term than "rule". Blocking a motion is a type of policy influence but it's not an articulation of policy itself.

[ComradeOm]

Isn't democratic a form of authoritarianism?The problem with (ab)using the term like this is that it quickly becomes meaningless. 'Oh... democracy is authoritarian and so is fascism and socialism. Golly.' What does that say? How is that a tool for analysis?

The reality is that liberal democracies may be 'authoritarian' in the sense that they are expressions of class rule but they are fundamentally based on a consensual state. Contrast to genuinely 'authoritarian' states that must use violence and repression to maintain their dominance over society. There's an obvious difference between the two but one that's lost if you just start branding anything and everything 'authoritarian'

[Zeus the Moose]

Isn't democratic a form of authoritarianism?

I think your analysis is a little bit superficial, but up to a point I'd say you're more or less right. The caveat, however, is that this would be "authoritarian" in a very neutral sense of the word; that is, there are structures in place where there are decision-making bodies that might go against what individuals or political minorities want, but it is expected that the minorities don't actively act against the will of the majority (assuming reasonable functioning on all sides.) While this makes it authoritarian in a very literal sense, there is an important difference to this and when socialists generally talk about authoritarianism. In a substantively democratic system, while there is subordination of political minorities to political majorities, such subordination is a temporary situation that can be overcome if the minority convinces enough people that their position is correct. On the other hand, in a system that socialists would consider to be authoritarian (even one that's formally democratic), there are other institutions in place that help keep those in power in power, even if they happen to lose a political majority.

[Einkarl]

I think your analysis is a little bit superficial, but up to a point I'd say you're more or less right. The caveat, however, is that this would be "authoritarian" in a very neutral sense of the word; that is, there are structures in place where there are decision-making bodies that might go against what individuals or political minorities want, but it is expected that the minorities don't actively act against the will of the majority (assuming reasonable functioning on all sides.) While this makes it authoritarian in a very literal sense, there is an important difference to this and when socialists generally talk about authoritarianism. In a substantively democratic system, while there is subordination of political minorities to political majorities, such subordination is a temporary situation that can be overcome if the minority convinces enough people that their position is correct. On the other hand, in a system that socialists would consider to be authoritarian (even one that's formally democratic), there are other institutions in place that help keep those in power in power, even if they happen to lose a political majority.


I don't want to give the impression of me as anti-democratic. On the contrary.

[bcbm]

The reality is that liberal democracies may be 'authoritarian' in the sense that they are expressions of class rule but they are fundamentally based on a consensual state. Contrast to genuinely 'authoritarian' states that must use violence and repression to maintain their dominance over society.

what liberal democracy do you live in that does not use violence and repression to maintain dominance?

[The Douche]

The problem with (ab)using the term like this is that it quickly becomes meaningless. 'Oh... democracy is authoritarian and so is fascism and socialism. Golly.' What does that say? How is that a tool for analysis?

The reality is that liberal democracies may be 'authoritarian' in the sense that they are expressions of class rule but they are fundamentally based on a consensual state. Contrast to genuinely 'authoritarian' states that must use violence and repression to maintain their dominance over society. There's an obvious difference between the two but one that's lost if you just start branding anything and everything 'authoritarian'

I do not consent to be governed by the state that runs the court that I have been summoned to tomorrow morning. Does that mean I don't have to go?

How can you call it consent when the only reason I follow their rules is under the threat of their armed bodies?

[jookyle]

The way most of the world exercises democracy is done through elections which results in what is called representative democracy. The problem is, it is very to show how elections themselves are anti-democratic when speaking about the use of elections to select public officials to run a country. The argument is that elections are aristocratic in nature and oligarchic in practice. Aristocracy meaning rule of the best is who we vote for; we elect the best to rule(in theory/principal). Oligarchic in practice as ologarchy is when the people who rule do so with out consent(including decision making. The government passes a bill and the best you can do is protest and hope it changes) and that the oligarchs do not act in the interests of the masses. As history has shown elected officials act with their own interests/on the behalf of a very small minority people who are power players. One may look into Thomas Ferguson's work The Investment Theory of Politics to see in a very scientific matter how this is true in present day America and most of the world.

And, if I may bring up Plato for a moment. Plato was very prolific, very wrong, but very prolific. Anyone today reading Plato would think the ideas are mad. BUT there is one thing he said in The Republic which has shown itself to not be so crazy. Plato says that although democracy is the least corrupt form of governance, it will eventually, turn into to tyranny. One may only need to look at the plutocratic oligarchy we live under today to see that you can not call Plato wholly wrong on this matter.

Also, if you really wanted to use authoritarian in a literal sense, nothing but utopian anarchy would be authoritarian in some aspect of society.

[ComradeOm]

what liberal democracy do you live in that does not use violence and repression to maintain dominance?Well currently that would be England

Now I know that England maintains an army, secret police, etc, and, as an Irishman, there's no need to tell me how violent they can be. But to suggest that these are a primary, or even important, tool in sustaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would be absurd. England is not a police state

What is central to the state's 'dominance' in England is not those who deal with violence and repression but the vast political structure at which 'Parliament' sits on the top. People obey laws and tolerate state institutions because they are considered legitimate, not because people have been beaten into submission. They consent to be ruled and they do so under the illusion that the governing institutions are responsive to the popular will

Contrast with genuine police states such as Syria or the Gulf state or S Africa (historically) or any other tinpot dictatorship where activists are left dead in the streets. Without regular bouts of mass repression these governments could not survive. The same cannot be said of the far more robust Western democracies


How can you call it consent when the only reason I follow their rules is under the threat of their armed bodies?Come back to me when you're a class. Or indeed representative of one. Just because you lie outside the mainstream consensus doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

And the idea that people in liberal democracies only obey laws out of fear of state retribution is silly. And reductive but mostly silly. Laws derive their impact from the fact that they are passed by popular bodies. That should be fairly obvious; particularly in comparison to those states where violent repression is very pronounced

[Yazman]

The problem with (ab)using the term like this is that it quickly becomes meaningless. 'Oh... democracy is authoritarian and so is fascism and socialism. Golly.' What does that say? How is that a tool for analysis?

The reality is that liberal democracies may be 'authoritarian' in the sense that they are expressions of class rule but they are fundamentally based on a consensual state. Contrast to genuinely 'authoritarian' states that must use violence and repression to maintain their dominance over society. There's an obvious difference between the two but one that's lost if you just start branding anything and everything 'authoritarian'

He meant "democracy" in a general sense when he said "whether direct or representative", he did not say specifically liberal democracies. To characterise his post as specifically criticising liberal democracies is incorrect.

[The Douche]

And the idea that people in liberal democracies only obey laws out of fear of state retribution is silly. And reductive but mostly silly. Laws derive their impact from the fact that they are passed by popular bodies. That should be fairly obvious; particularly in comparison to those states where violent repression is very pronounced

Yeah, thats why people never drive faster than the speed limit, people never use illegal drugs, nobody drinks under age, etc. Nobody ever breaks any laws because they totally agree to and consent to all laws passed by those "popular bodies" of millionaire representatives of the people.

[Rafiq]

Comradeom is correct, while Bourgeois-Liberal states do indeed possess an extremely powerful armed wing, secret police, etc. Their class dominance is sustained by false conciousness, not the secret police or the military, which only intervene when said false conciousness is done away with. Though that sais little for, say, black communities in the 60's and 70's which were arguably completely kept in control via state force, violence, etc.

[Rafiq]

Though I must add, to think laws are consented by the masses is absurd.

[ComradeOm]

He meant "democracy" in a general sense when he said "whether direct or representative", he did not say specifically liberal democracies. To characterise his post as specifically criticising liberal democracies is incorrect.Which does not detract from the banality of the observation. My issue was not with the term 'democracy' but the neutering of 'authoritarian'. If you use the latter in the way that the OP does then the term "liberal democracy" makes little sense


Yeah, thats why people never drive faster than the speed limit, people never use illegal drugs, nobody drinks under age, etc. Nobody ever breaks any laws because they totally agree to and consent to all laws passed by those "popular bodies" of millionaire representatives of the people.While you would suggest that nobody breaks the speed limit or whatever because they're all petrified of breaking the law? I'm not sure where you were going with that...

But the examples that you picked are instructive. Not all laws are equal and not all are respected equally. Few people would suggest that current drugs laws or US drinking ages are anything but anachronisms. They probably made sense and were popular once but not today. Which is why jurists tend to be so keen to reform or prune such laws - they lower the respect people have for the law in general

And the legitimacy of the latter is derived from those bodies that pass laws. When the government tells people to stop smoking in pubs, for example, then people stop smoking in pubs. Not because the stormtroopers might rush in and shoot everyone but because people accept the government's right to legislate. They consent to being ruled

To follow the logic to its conclusion, people obey the law because ultimately every democratic government roots its authority in the people themselves. It's not just 'some guy in a big white building', it's a representative elected by the voters. Except of course for that country where everyone perceives state institutions to be nothing more than "millionaire representatives of the people"? Or are we talking about you again?