POL1 Schumpeter
People can never rule
What is democracy
Intro
From Athens to Paris, citizens of democracies have praised the unique values defended by their system for generations: political freedom, participation, and inclusiveness
Rousseau said it himself in the Social Contract that “were there a people of Gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.”
While Rousseau promptly acknowledged that there never was, nor will there ever be, a government in the world that is truly ‘democratic,’ he still used the word ‘democracy’ in its etymological meaning to refer to the power of the people.
Perhaps similar to when the term was coined in 5BC it most probably meant 'the rule of the person who had the demos as his followers"
when Schumpeter wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy that democracy is nothing more than the “rule of the politician,” he unequivocally questioned the ethos of democracy in Western societies.
Unlike Tocqueville who saw democracy as an end — a historical necessity even —, the Schumpeterian description sees democracy as a means of competition between political elites whose stake is popular suffrage.
And, as a by-product, the end of democracy is the production of laws, decrees, and decisions.
Considering that Schumpeter had a relatively poor experience with democracy in the aftermath of the Great War, the Austrian political economist adopted an empirical and realist standpoint, rejecting any intrinsic values associated to democracy to advocate for a more procedural approach instead.
One exception
But in most representative democracies of the West the concept of ‘the rule of the people’ is not “precise” enough to be automatically associated with democracy for 2 reasons
he did concede that the only way people can actually rule or govern is through direct democracy — like in the “Greek polis” or the “New England town meetings.”
distinction (borrowed from Weber) between democracy as a supreme value in itself (“the Classical Doctrine of Democracy”),
and, democracy as a method for the selection of leaders (“Democracy as Competition for Political Leadership”).
by breaking down the word ‘democracy’ etymologically
Schumpeter dismissed the idea that it could be simply understood as the ‘rule of the people’ since demos and kratein, are both too vague
Kratein: Schumpeter argued that power, be it exercised by a dictator or an oligarch, is “never absolute.”
Demos: could be as “narrow or as broad” as “any people” , thus clarifying little to nothing about the group that is supposedly detaining power.
Schumpeter also rejected the idea that the people could rule through representatives
because “only a (physical or moral) person can legally delegate or be represented,” however, a ‘people’ is not — and cannot — considered as a legal personality.
it would also be a mistake to think that parliaments are representative bodies through which the people can exercise their power
1) Schumpeter noted that they are merely government organ
2) Schumpeter argued that there are historical precedents to prove that there are “monarchies,” or “oligarchies” that have succeeded in securing the “democratic method.”
Because the regimes can present themselves as either democracies through electoral dictatorship OR these regimes have a system of democracy that can emerge from it
argued that the people cannot rule and that the classical doctrine is simply too idealist, precisely because the common will of the people does not exist
Dismissed the 18th century democratic method advocated by thinkers like Rousseau — the classical doctrine
suggests that there is an “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.”
Schumpeter started by refuting the concept of common good.
According to the classical doctrine, the common good does exist — and that it might even seem obvious at times — because it considers that the citizen is a rational person
Fails to take into account the spontaneity and the impossibility of establishing a (common) definition of the common good.
there is no unanimous agreement on what the common good is because a modern democracy is too diverse
even if there are basic principles like security or health that can be agreed upon, there are different priorities regarding those specific questions will inevitably raise debates.
Since the classical doctrine considers that there is a common will of the people that coincides with the common good, Schumpeter used this argument to rebut the fact that a common will of the people exists
by positioning himself against utilitarianism, Schumpeter denies any possibility of a harmonious exercise of power by the people through the common will.
not only does a common will not exist, but that if it does, the people’s will is manufactured by the politician
the people cannot rule in a democracy because they are not knowledgeable enough beyond the sphere of their private affairs.
While a common will can still emerge from a congregation of individual wills, Schumpeter noted that they are nothing more than “vague impulses” that are formed and influenced by “given slogans and mistaken impressions.”
The problem in a democracy is not that the citizens do not know enough, in fact, they can be extremely knowledgeable about things that matter the most to them,
but when it comes to a general set of knowledge concerning far-reaching political questions, the average citizen cannot be expected to be fully informed of everything.
politicians capitalise on this problem of voter ignorance to influence individual wills — thus also influencing any common will that might be formed
They do this by dressing up their political agenda in the language of the common good
Schumpeter sees modern democracy as a sham, with “psycho-techniques,” politicians, as the very “essence” of the manipulation.
Since it is clear that politicians have their own interests that do not have to coincide with the common good, it is not the people that rule, they think they are ruling because they have fallen into the advertisement of their leaders.
the majority does not represent the people or its will, it is simply a majority that happens to select one leader or another
While one could argue that the essence of democracy is driven by the majority — with the elections being the manifestation of the will of the people — and not its leader, Schumpeter would also disagree with this
results “lack not only rational unity but also rational sanction.
Worse, still, in certain cases the electorate majority does not even represent the popular majority.
As it was the case in the 2016 United States Presidential election, D. Trump got the keys to the White House with not even half of the popular votes,
therefore elections cannot be seen as an accurate measure of the will of the people.
More recently in 2020, a lot of voters were voting for J. Biden to oppose Trump — and not necessarily because Biden represented what they stood for
therefore, one could ask if the 2020 election was a celebration of Biden’s victory or of Trump’s defeat
proves Schumpeter’s argument that votes can sometimes seem conflicting because they are influence by a multitude of reason that do not necessarily line up with the common will.
Insane of how voting for the same outcome means different things to different voters
When we vote (aside from in referendums when its yes no — but even possibly then), even when we vote in the same way, we are not voting for the same thing
What 'political will' then is expressed if that party then wins a majority because there are different nuances in their program
Schumpeter's arguments in context
with other authors
Tocqueville
There's also the question of franticness in a democracy that was raised
For T it might be good to have an agitated demo ? why
For S the franticness might be that people start to prioritise re-election and that politicians will be caught up in that instead of delivering what is good for the State
This isn't necessarily good or bad, that's just the nature of politics
Lead to popularity game and leave the ruling to the expert which in turn questions the influence that the government has in the governance
T therefore has a strong belief that it is the people that participate in the structuring of the political arena
But for S the politics and the governance are split. Politics might not interfere with the actual business of running the country that is not done by politicians but by civil servants
Weber:
Agree on the empirical aspect of civil servants
Political leaders may be the forefront of the government but what is most effective about the modern state is not the politician but the efficacy of bureaucracy
Politics itself is just a show of lights with little substance and this isn't necessarily a bad system because the real world and the real work is done behind the scenes
Tocqueville sees the agency of individual citizens as important while for Schumpeter that becomes irrelevant to politics and does not interact with the business of high politics.
politicians have to work from politics and for politics. World dominated by the next election.
Schumpeter might say that that is not a bad thing and produces a stable form of political system.
Has the ability to produce unintentional good outcomes
Non-violent form oof political system, peaceful competition to collect the vote. Civil war is then prevented, to an extent. “Hidden strengths”
Link Weber charismatic rule and Schumpeter is leadership and talking about character of the leader within a party, selling a leader to represent a party.
Democracy is presented as the presentation of the leader and when voting comes you vote for the person/people
Today
Democracy is a set of embedded belief, a way of life, but for Schumpeter it is just a process
if ruling lies in the hands of politicians and not the people, this means that the people can, to an extent, influence the process of ruling
Schumpeter did predict the volatile aspect of human nature in politics, he perhaps did not expect how far the people will go to demonstrate their desires.
Macron’s last term was highlighted by the Gilets Jaunes protests, the coronavirus pandemic, and his ambitious European project.
GJ: representation of how the people can influence the exercise of power in politics
Having built his platform on the importance of ecology — among other pillars — Macron ambitiously announced an increase in the carbon tax on fuel.
sparked a wave of protests across the country, mainly from middle class populations that depend on fuel to commute to work.
Rule of the politician
French election with the McKinsey scandal
Government poured millions into private consulting
What started off as an economical protest on the tax increase quickly escalated into deeper socio-political claims — reduction in employee contributions, additional grants for disabled adults, etc.
After months of relentless protests including hundreds of thousands of citizens, the Macron administration doubled down on the fuel tax and also conceded on other claims.
example of citizens in a democracy exercising their fundamental rights undermines Schumpeter’s claim that, for a democracy to function well and endure, citizens are expected to remain passive to respect the division of labour between themselves and the elected professional politicians.
Worth questioning if for Schumpeter there is a democratic breakdown and not the triumph of democracy
Schumpeter’s claim that, for a democracy to function well and endure, citizens are expected to remain passive to respect the division of labour between themselves and the elected professional politicians.
essence of politics in a democracy revolves around “party advertising, slogans, and marching tune” for the politicians to strike a chord with their constituents
Yet this was hardly the case in democracies like France or the US where citizens are anything but passive.
Perhaps that is why some are pointing out the decline and threat of democracy in these two countries.
even if the people are not ruling and making the decisions themselves, they still retain a degree of influence in a democracy through the exercise of their fundamental rights.
Schumpeter's point about politics and democracy being a nice non-violent way to lead a political system but on the condition that we have to accept the outcome
Mélenchon electorate blocking universities and Paris over the first round of voting
Conclusion
Schumpeter’s view on democracy as an instrumental value, a political method rather than a value in itself has often been criticised as elitist.
Rejecting the idea of a common will and common good, Schumpeter is adamant that the people can never rule in a democracy because it is the job of professional politicians who are meant to compete (freely and competitively) for the people’s vote.
Incapable of political judgements, citizens of democracies are an easy prey to political manipulation by politicians who encourage voter irrationality and do not govern according to what the voters want since they have their own agendas and interests
democracy is nothing more than a mechanism to determine leadership.
democracy is nothing more than a mechanism to determine leadership.
Nonetheless, the people’s ability to influence political decisions cannot be neglected when assessing popular sovereignty in democracies.
Schumpeter argues that rational argument cannot reconcile conflicting values.