“Beyond Democracy”: Democracy is not an ideal

Democracy is often considered the best political system imaginable. However, authors Frank Karsten and Karel Beckman challenge this idea in their book, Beyond Democracy » (Beyond Democracy) published in 2012. Frank Karsten is the founder of the libertarian organization « More Freedom » in the Netherlands and the co-founder of the « Mises Institute Netherlands"He presents himself as a fervent defender of non-interference of the State in the lives of citizens.

The book can be interesting in several respects insofar as it questions a concept that we think has been acquired since antiquity, namely that of democracy. Going against common thinking, the authors assert that democracy does not lead to freedom, civilization, prosperity, peace and the rule of law, contrary to what is commonly believed. generally thinks.

On the contrary, for them, democracy as we know it results in a loss of individual freedom, increased social conflict, uncontrolled government spending, and a general decline in quality of life.

In this article, we will explore the key arguments presented in the book and consider the implications of these ideas.

The 12 myths of democracy

The authors of the book "Beyond Democracy" debunk 13 major myths that are generally used to defend the idea that democracy is the best political system.

The myth that every vote counts : The chances that an individual can change something in an election are insignificant, and he cannot vote for someone with whom he fully agrees because such a person does not exist. The authors remind us that democracy is above all, as Aristotle wrote, "the tyranny of the majority. The individual is drowned in the mass and his individual voice does not count.

The myth that people rule in a democracy : There is no "the people", but millions of people with different interests in some areas and similar interests in others. It is the politicians who make decisions in place of individuals, ignoring the singularities of each. Power in reality belongs to the politicians who decide in place of the people, sometimes in a way very far from what the "people" had decided. This explains the many demonstrations and protests that democratic peoples experience.

The myth that the majority is right : There is no magic power of the majority that makes it right just because it is the majority. It often happens that the majority unites to despoil the minority. It also very often happens that the majority is wrong. The common taste of the people is not a guarantee of quality, but only of quantity.

The myth that democracy is politically neutral : In reality, there is still a tendency towards collectivization and the expansion of the state itself.

The myth that democracy leads to prosperity : This is an error of causal inference, because according to Austrian economic theory, incentives are distorted, leading to excessive spending, increased debt, and impoverishment of the population. It is a myth cultivated with the idea that the richest countries are democratic. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and even China prove the opposite. Democracy does not influence the economy directly.

The myth that democracy is necessary to redistribute wealth and help the poor: In reality, this amounts to redistributing resources from the productive class to the best organized pressure groups. In reality, those who benefit most from state wealth are the agencies and organizations linked to the state itself. The bureaucracy, lobby agencies, politicians are the ones who benefit from the redistribution of wealth.

The myth that democracy is necessary to live in harmony with each other : The authors give the hypothetical example of a vote to decide whether people should eat white bread or wholemeal bread. Ultimately, we must bow to the tastes of the majority. Necessarily, part of the group will be harmed in their choice. In this case, the outcome of the vote would cause more conflict than harmony.

The myth that democracy is necessary to create a sense of community : In reality, democracy is compulsory affiliation, while the sense of community depends on voluntary participation.

The myth that democracy is equivalent to freedom and tolerance: Many of the freedoms we have today were not acquired through democracy, but through traditions that predate the establishment of these democratic constitutions.

The myth that democracy promotes peace and helps fight corruption : There has been an intensification of wars in democracies, and with democratic "rights" come the duties to fight. Corruption is also linked to powerful states, regardless of the political regime. Democratic countries go to war as much, if not more than other countries. The United States has participated in and initiated many wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) under the cover of democracy.

The myth that people get what they want in a democracy: Bureaucratic planning for democratic regulations does not produce the desired results. Democracy always leads to more laws and codes, which prevents the speed of actions taken.

The myth that we are all democrats: Compulsory participation in democracy gives the illusion that people like democracy, but if people could choose to move to a city 20 miles away, with much lower taxes and less bureaucracy, many would, even if they were deprived of their right to vote.

The harmful consequences of democracy

In the second part of the book, the authors examine the harmful consequences of democracy. They claim that the national democratic process is completely incapable of solving the problems it creates. On the contrary, it is very good at producing bureaucracy, parasitism, cronyism, rising anti-social and criminal behavior, mediocrity and lower standards, a culture of discontent and a short-term view of political change.

Note: It is possible to obtain the book in English, on Amazon.

What alternative is proposed?

This book which enlightens us on the flaws of democracy offers a third part (brief) on a possible alternative.The ideal according to the authors would be a society built on decentralization and individual freedom based on a contractual society. Finally, the vision described slips into a libertarian ideology where the freedom of individuals is put at the center rather than the freedom of the majority of the people. If we dig deeper, it is also very close to the Proudhonian anarchist ideology where social organization is thought of without coercive authority. However, in the book, the anarchist ideology is not advocated or put forward, despite the similarity of the views developed. We can see an extreme libertarian ideology where democracy would be replaced by a multitude of micro-States where each individual would be free to act according to his (good) will. The State would have less power and fewer organizations and many rules would be subject to the will of individuals organized in a "federation".

The authors cite Switzerland as a very close example of a free society, although perfectible, where there is some competition between municipalities, allowing easier internal migration, without the need for physical migration. Remember that Switzerland operates with a Federal Council, a college of 7 members, which makes its decisions by consensus.

Final opinion

The book "Beyond Democracy" drastically challenges the idea that democracy is the best political system. The authors explore the evidence that democracy does not lead to freedom, prosperity and solidarity, but rather to social conflict, uncontrolled spending and tyrannical government.

This is the authors' thesis and it may be subject to many criticisms. One can criticize the book for its lack of literary resources and statistics that would support the ideas or facts. Similarly, regarding the proposed alternative, it can be considered "light" and lacking in scientific substance. The reader may be left hanging while reading the book, by the proposed solution which is poorly developed and lacks tangible facts. In reality, the concept of a libertarian society of this type is very difficult to imagine as concrete examples are lacking. Perhaps we will be able to see a concrete example with the election of Javier Milei in Argentina, president who has strong similarities with the thinking presented in the work. Until then, it remains rather vague and very theoretical…

Finally, overall, the free has the merit of questioning us about an opinion very deeply rooted in society which would like democracy to be the last stage of possible evolution of the political regime. The book challenges the reader to rethink our preconceptions about democracy and consider innovative solutions for our political future. In this way, it is salutary and useful and can help us to think differently about the democratic political regime.

Overall, the book remains very interesting to read, because the authors propose an alternative based on decentralization and individual freedom. A way of thinking that can indirectly interest bitcoiners, even if it is not a standard and a single path to follow, but only a path to consider.

See as well: