Essay: Are We Living in an Illusion of Democracy?

Are We Living in an Illusion of Democracy?

In contemporary Western society, it is customary to think of democracy as something that liberates and equalizes. Most of us are accustomed to the idea that, except for a few countries that the media paints as enemies of democracy, we live in a world with dominantly liberal views. We do, however, have the opportunity to choose our leaders, express opinions on their competence, and have the ability to see what is happening in our transparent government. But is this really the case and do we really understand what democracy means and what is necessary for it to truly function?

Observing the course of our society, the economic processes taking place in it, the media, and geo- and local politics, some questions arise. “Are we not living in the illusion of democracy?” And isn’t living in the illusion of democracy ironically kind of democratic? The first, emotional response might be negative, but after deeper observations, this answer begins to change, but it is not exhausting, depressing, or infuriating in any way. Rather it’s kind of neutral and natural. It is understandable how such a question might create confusion, anxiety or even anger in someone, but this thought should instead generate more desire to develop this line of thought and see what lies behind it? Someone might say that the idea of “Being in the illusion of democracy.” is ridiculous or trivial, since the idea of living in the illusion of democracy and its conscious or unconscious active maintenance is inherently democratic and refutes itself.

The purpose of this expression of thought is not to discredit our government or nullify all the developments that have taken place in democratic countries. The purpose of this essay is to look at the course of modern democracy and how it is affected by capitalism, the media, and each one of us? The essay’s aim is not to directly pose a problem or provide a solution, but to justify the line of thought reaching to the idea as well as developing the question “Are we living in the illusion of democracy?”. The final goal of the essay is to share another perspective on the Western worldview, the democratic system of government, and human nature.

What is Democracy?

Democracy, or the power of the people, derives from the ancient Greek words “demos” which means people, and “kratos” which means power. Democracy is a political system of governance where the people or officials authorized by the people have the right to create laws, make decisions, and exercise legitimate violence. The following characteristics define democracy:

The majority of the people is the only source of power, which respects the rights of the minority.
Separation of government branches and the existence of local self-government.
Civil society – Citizens have the right to participate in politics and public elections.
Opposition is legitimate – Pluralism and political parties.
Commitment to the principles of the rule of law.
Protection of individual and human rights.

Becker & Dr. J.A. Raveloson. (2008, September). What is democracy? (pp. 4-16) University of Hamburg. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Democracy. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved April 6, 2023.

Peter, F. (2015). What is Democracy and What is its Raison d’être? Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(1), 5-24.

What is an Illusion?

An illusion is a thing or phenomenon that deceives our senses or mind, giving the impression that it is something else. An illusion can be defined as an opinion or belief that is not true. Illusions include all kinds of card tricks; optical illusions; holograms, and stories told by fraudsters when selling their schemes. Illusions can be natural and harmless, such as optical illusions, where a static combination of colors or shapes on an image appears to the eye as moving. They can also be tools for promoting someone’s agenda, and can affect people’s worldviews and experiences. Examples include radicalized sects, where charismatic leaders instill absurd beliefs in their followers, or state propaganda, which has been a popular tool for creating mindsets since the industrial revolution.

“Illusion is defined as a ‘false’ presentation of a ‘real’ sensory stimulus, i.e., an interpretation that is at odds with the generally agreed upon objective ‘reality.’ Illusions are special perceptual experiences where the information arising from ‘real’ external stimuli leads to incorrect perception or a false impression of the object or event from which the stimulation originates.”

West, L. J. (2023). Illusion | Definition, Examples, & Facts. In Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The following characteristics define illusion:

The perceived does not match with other senses or measurable information.
Caused over the course of limited or erroneous experience.
The experience can be recreated, despite its untruthfulness.

The World is Hierarchical

Hierarchy is a system in which people or things are placed at different levels or ranks according to their importance. In social sciences, hierarchy is the order of power positions, often associated with the chain of command and control. The term is derived from the Greek words hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”).

Britannica, T. E. (2023). Hierarchy | Definition, Types, and Examples. In Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Political hierarchies systems are inherently political in nature. In world politics, hierarchies stratify, order, and organize relationships not only among states but also among other actors, often even a mix of different actors within one differentiation structure.

Lake, D. A., and Liu, F. (2020). Hierarchies in International Relations. In Oxford Bibliographies.

Social hierarchies are systems of social organization in which individuals are ranked according to group status and have different access to social and material resources. In a hierarchical system, individuals standing higher are usually granted greater privileges and status than those at lower levels, and they have a higher orientation towards social domination.

Roth, Z. C., and Rios, K. (2020). Social Hierarchies. In SpringerLink Reference Work Entry.

The Difference Between Hierarchy and Food Chain in Terms of Domination and Privileges: The hierarchy of domination is a social structure within an animal group, where certain individuals dominate over others and therefore have the opportunity to access better resources like food, companions, shelter, and other desirable goods. This differs from the food chain, where organisms are interconnected through feeding relationships; one organism eats another for survival. On the other hand, hierarchies of domination are more organic and less formal than bureaucratic hierarchies, allowing greater fluidity and flexibility in hierarchical relationships in established roles.

Barnett, V. (2019). The History of Domination Theory. In SpringerLink Living Reference Work Entry.

The first argument supporting the thesis of the illusoriness of modern Western democracy goes as follows: We live in a hierarchical world, where everything in existence dominates and is dominated. That is, everything that exists dominates something while at the same time is dominated by something else.

Hierarchies are present everywhere around us. The interactions among organisms and their environment form different groupings, termed as food chains or ecological hierarchies depending on the context. Even inanimate nature is hierarchical in its own way. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and hurricanes. The hierarchical ladder is most clearly visible in food chains, without which life would not be possible. Herbivores have their own ranks; some higher, some lower. Similarly, among carnivores, fresh killers are at the top, followed by scavengers. If this chain were to break down, neither the wolf nor the sheep flock or bee colony would survive, and as a result, we too would perish, who are so equal and free in our small social bubble. In this essay, we do acknowledge food chains, but primarily focus on social hierarchies as a category of ecological hierarchies. Over time, states too have developed various hierarchies, referred to as divisions of labor, which resemble food chains in nature. Each food chain, even democratic division of labor, must have stability as well as the fertility of links. This limits the existence and diversity of underdeveloped individuals, sick fruits, and sterile flowers.

Taking the ancient Greece, which was the first functioning democracy, until it ceased to function, as an example. In that democracy, only citizens (polites) could participate, which included only men. Foreigners (metikoi) were free and could engage in economic activities, but like women and slaves, they could not participate in political processes like public discourse and elections.

Robinson, E. (2004). Ancient Greek Democracy and Its Study. History Compass.

Robert K. Fleck, F. Andrew Hanssen (2019). Ancient Greece: Democracy and Autocracy. Oxford Academic.

Leaving out inappropriate examples at the expense of monkeys and other animal species, we must still admit that despite how diligently we try to create social equality (where at times, but not perfectly, we have been quite successful), no one has yet annulled the natural individual tendency towards certain social roles, which in turn are structurally hierarchical. Someone always rises to a leading position and as a result, someone falls into a subordinate position. Evidence for this can be observed in all forms of governance, enterprises, and societies that have existed in history so far. The very fact that we have a social order indicates that hierarchies are natural for us and we also realize them through their conceptualization and delineation. In every society and collective, there are individuals in leading positions as well as those who are subordinate. We see how individuals forced or accidentally into leading positions cannot or do not want to cope with their responsibilities and step down. Following which, those with the necessary characteristics emerge. Despite the fact that our social roles have changed, disintegrated, and reborn throughout history, we cannot completely annul them, but can only distort them in one direction or another.

Take, for example, the role and place of women in society. Although the role of women in society and the family has changed over the last century, household and nurturing duties have not disappeared, but have been shared as other role duties, either between men and women in the family or between teachers and educators in broader society. Observations suggest that despite our rationality and empathy, social hierarchy is still inevitable. The following chapters justify this inevitability. However, despite the inevitability of social hierarchy in our species, it can be equalized and democratized to a certain extent through its maintenance measures and the consequences of its existence.

Individual and Physiological Inequality

Even at the individual level, our physiological differences make the maintenance of democracy extremely challenging. Physiological and biochemical differences in our brains play a significant role in the formation of social hierarchies and how various roles and statuses are achieved, which in turn affect political processes and the overall quality of democracies. These are significantly influenced by subjective mutual evaluations and group perceptions, often colored by individuals’ physiological and biochemical differences.

“Using modern artificial intelligence techniques, we find that brain FC (Functional Connectivity) largely predicts a person’s political orientation. In the largest neuropolicy study so far, we find that of the nine common tasks, reward, search, and empathy tasks predicted political affiliation the best. We create a powerful political ideology predictor that enhances the use of common socio-demographic predictors. We identify the brain regions that are most influential in predicting liberalism and conservatism, possibly identifying the political brain.”

PNAS Nexus. (2022, May 23). Functional connectivity signatures of political ideology.

Yang, S. E., Wilson, J. D., Lu, Z. L., & Cranmer, S. PNAS Nexus, 1(3), 1-11.

“Overall, our results are consistent with the view that political orientation partly reflects individual differences in the general mechanism functioning related to cognitive control and self-regulation”

(Amodio et al., 2007, p. 2).

Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Maser, S. L., & Yee, C. M. Nature Publishing. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism.

The study concludes that political orientation reflects to a certain extent individual differences in the general mechanism functioning related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism was associated with lower neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts, while liberalism was associated with higher neurocognitive sensitivity to cognitive conflicts.

For instance, individuals dominating in social hierarchies often have higher levels of testosterone, which manifests through aggression, dominance, and territoriality. This behavior is supported by coordinated changes in physiological systems, including the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal and hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axes. The physiological and biochemical bases underlying social hierarchies significantly impact social hierarchies, their formation and maintenance, which in turn influence political processes.

“Leaders’ endogenous testosterone and cortisol significantly influenced hierarchical position: testosterone positively predicted the number of subordinates leaders had, but only among leaders with low cortisol levels”

(Sherman et al., 2015, p. 3).

The study concluded that a specific neuroendocrine profile – low cortisol and high testosterone levels – may favor the attainment of higher or more competitive statuses. This hormonal profile allows the status-enhancing effects of testosterone to operate unrestrictedly, enabling individuals to attain higher-status positions within the organization hierarchy.

Dominant individuals, who often achieve greater wealth and power, can use their resources to influence politics. Additionally, due to close preference, these individuals create more favorable (privileged) conditions for their inner circle and also place them in power positions, which may lead to a political power imbalance. Although this has a simple animal rationale, again referring to our significant physiological difference, those close ones, who have become privileged to be in power positions, may not be competent in them at all. Consequently, having a negative impact on the people in their sphere of influence and the surrounding society. This scenario results in a political landscape that disproportionately favors the interests of the wealthy, undermining the democratic ideal of equal representation.

“In general, our results showed that novel education and occupational ladders (excluding income ladder) predict a significant portion of the dispersion levels of psychological well-being, which are not due to canonical objective measures of SES (i.e., income, education, and occupation) or the conventional subjective SES MacArthur scale”

(Navarro-Carrillo et al., 2020, p. 1).

“In Study 1, perceptions of social class rank provided a positive association between objective material resource measurements of social class and self-evaluation”

(Kraus & Park, 2014, p. 1).

“In Study 2, lower-class individuals who received a small (compared to equal) share of economic resources in an economic game scenario reported more negative self-conscious emotions – negative self-evaluation correlation – compared to higher-class individuals.”

(Kraus & Park, 2014, p. 1).

The study concluded that both chronic and situation-specific understanding of economic status significantly affects self-evaluation. People from lower social class backgrounds usually have a negative self-evaluation, which worsens when they are reminded of their lower economic status.

This distortion can impair democratic governance, political engagement, and social cohesion. Additionally, the stress associated with lower positions in the social hierarchy may lead to a decrease in citizens’ political engagement. Those who are less affluent may feel that their voices are not heard or that the issues discussed do not align with their interests. This disappointment can lead to disenfranchisement and apathy, reducing participation in elections and other forms of political activity. It is evident that individuals’ physiological and biochemical differences play a foundational role in shaping the social, political, and democratic landscape. Environmental, social, and economic impacts further exhaust on this, in turn, determining the individual’s capacity and interest in participating in social activities for the maintenance of democracy.

When we look at what is happening around us and in the media at the moment, we see that this is exactly how our situation is evolving. Large corporations and wealthy individuals make decisions while economically weaker people try to cope with their private lives and find ways to adapt to the decisions and conditions made by the wealthy without having had any chance to decide. This is because the conditions in which they are do not allow them to delve into politics and actively participate in it. This, in turn, raises another question. Is this democracy if the people do not have the conditions, opportunities, or resources to influence their local politics in a way that would benefit them?

Neuropsychology, 26(4). (2012). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and the human prefrontal cortex. Asp, E., Ramchandran, K., & Tranel, D., 414–421.

Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58(3), 245-253.

Economic Inequality

Looking at our current Western capitalist democracy, we see that economic inequality and class divide are greater than ever before. Inflation continues while wages stagnate or grow disproportionately slowly. Power and capital are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthier and more privileged class, while citizens have to strive more to avoid drowning in bills and debts. It can be argued that a major reason why we are far from living in a democratic society is the economic divide, which prevents a large part of society from participating in politics even on a small scale. Purely because they lack the necessary resources. Not only directly economic resources like money or power, but also indirect resources stemming from money and life comfort, such as freedom from excessive existential stress and the opportunity to take an interest in public life. Although economic instability or direct poverty does not directly prevent a person from voting, political activities, like self-realization, belong to the top of Maslow’s pyramid. Therefore, it can be argued that people in economically unstable conditions do not see voting or participating in political activities as something prioritized.

Additionally, economic inequality may also lead to a decrease in citizens’ political engagement. When wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, those who are less affluent may feel that their voice is not heard or that the discussed issues do not align with their interests. This can lead to disenfranchisement and unrest. Inequality can disrupt social cohesion and undermine trust in democratic institutions. As the economic divide grows, so do social divides. This can lead to increased polarization, fostering an environment of mistrust and resentment, which may further undermine democratic norms.

Addressing economic inequality is crucial for preserving democracies. This includes implementing policies aimed at reducing income disparities and ensuring equal access to opportunities. It also requires efforts to ensure that political influence does not disproportionately accumulate in the hands of a few.

Lierse, H., Sachweh, P. & Waitkus, N. (2022) Introduction: Wealth, Inequality and Redistribution in Capitalist Societies. Soc Just Res 35, 367–378.

Bagchi, S., Fagerstrom, M.J. Wealth inequality and democracy. Public Choice 197, 89–136 (2023).

Gradstein, Mark; Milanovic, Branko; Ying, Yvonne. 2001. Democracy and Income Inequality: An Empirical Analysis. Policy Research Working Paper; No. 2561. © World Bank, Washington, DC.

Education, Enlightenment, and Active Participation

Another thesis formulation helps us understand this from another angle. “A functioning democracy requires education, enlightenment, and active participation.” Undoubtedly, the number of educated people in the world is much higher than ever before, which is naturally a positive phenomenon. However, it must be admitted that due to rapid development and the market demand dictated by capitalism, the quality of publicly available education begins to lag behind and become rigid.

Since the industrial revolution and the advent of capitalism, the quality of education level began to grow, but disproportionately towards the development of income-generating technologies, leaving humanities, a less lucrative direction, in the background. Systematically reducing the humanities part of publicly available education. This, in turn, has accelerated the development of both technologies and societies, hence individuality began to emerge more and the quality of education, if not declining, began to lag step by step and become rigid.

Speaking of the rigidity of the education system, we must admit that the education system is more geared towards cultivating quality and obedient workers, rather than critically thinking and actively participating individuals in society. This is mostly at the primary and secondary education level (during the period when a person is actively engaged in self-discovery) and less at higher education level. This is indicated by a monotonous classroom-based approach, where students are required to memorize and repeat information to get a good grade. Although public schools with directions and inclinations are somewhat more flexible than the average public institution, there is also more of a disciplinary rather than individual development function among them. This can also be noticed in the similarity between kindergarten, school, factory, and prison, where all individuals are equalized, disciplined, and forced to operate within certain fixed time frames.

This is one significant reason why today’s democracy is mainly illusory and soon collapsing. Humanities focus on society, its study, and promotion. The decline in humanitarian education has a direct impact on the quality of democracy and its maintenance, which in turn affects the overall quality of life. Quality, diverse education promotes citizens’ interest and activity in political life and the maintenance of democratic values. Consequently, when the quality of education and particularly humanities is low, the citizen’s contribution to a democratic society is correspondingly lower.

The way a person is educated and the knowledge and characteristics favored in them affect how the person sees themselves as a member of society. If the education system cultivates workers, whose main skills are to be on time and repeat what was told to them, then their behavior in a political context will largely reflect that. If a person is not taught to think critically, use logic, and take an interest in the surrounding society and politics, they are unlikely to develop these characteristics. Except for a few individual cases. If citizens lack the education to participate in democracy as well as the understanding of why to do it, then their participation will be minimal or, in the worst case, destructive.

Corporate Preference

In the democratic process, it is presumed that the votes of citizens are the primary force behind legislative outcomes. However, studies and statistics show that corporate lobbying can significantly influence the enactment of laws, sometimes even when these laws are at odds with public referendums. Over the last four decades, large corporations have learned to play the Washington game. Companies now dedicate immense resources to politics, and their widespread influence increasingly limits the capacity of the democratic political system.

“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, Cambridge University Press Pg. 567 (1).

Research also shows that bills associated with lobbying are more likely to be enacted than bills without lobbying. This suggests that corporate lobbying can significantly increase the likelihood of adopting a new law or repealing an old one. There have been instances where enacted legislation contradicts public referendums. “Apparently, the central point of the theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, the median citizen or “median voter”, does not fare well against the economic elite and organized interest groups.” Additionally, it cannot be forgotten that large corporations, like political parties, have access to funding and experts for conducting all sorts of media campaigns. This brings us to the next argument.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, Cambridge University Press Pg. 572 (9)

Media and Consent Formation

The third argument lies in how modern media operates. It seems that a much more influential reason why we live in the illusion of democracy is the public information space and social media, more than education or interest. The way social media algorithms work, how our attention operates, how easy and lazy the consumption of modern media and entertainment has become – all of this has been exploited by capitalist media factories, which in turn strongly affect our opinions, worldviews, and the ability to effectively participate in maintaining democracy.

Considering the shortening attention span of the average user and how popularity outweighs legitimacy in social media and search engines. The way social media and search engines are set up, creates prejudices and beliefs in people, instead of educating them. Currently, it cannot be denied that big data is used not only for product marketing, analysis, and influencing consideration but also for manipulating people. After all, platforms nowadays collect so much data that they know the users better than the users know themselves. The malevolence here lies in how big data is used for various manipulations and why it is done. The reason is that collecting big data and presenting content based on it works. If you know the user’s interests, preferences, views, and habits, it’s quite easy to start tailoring content for that user. Data, proper marketing skills, and access to the platform’s background (or adequate funding) – it’s quite easy to start giving people biased information, which in turn biases their views and opinions in the desired direction. We see examples of such manipulations in Google, where search suggestions vary based on location and political views. Yes, this can be attributed to what search terms are popular in that particular area at that time, but believing that would be, to put it mildly, ignorance would be absurd. Here we address a case where search auto-complete suggestions are composed in a suggestive manner.

Just as statistical data can be misrepresented for manipulation, search engines and social media can be used to propagate a desired perspective and biased opinion. And yes, this may indeed seem like a conspiracy theory, but only because such things are hard to bring to light without professional expertise. Nevertheless, the number of lawsuits filed against large platforms provides enough basis to doubt their work ethics and talk about the dangers they pose to the public. After all, is it our decision or opinion if we ourselves have not participated in its formation, but have accepted the perspective composed for us knowing our interests and beliefs better than we ourselves?

In addition to algorithms, large corporate marketing budgets, and content bias, I have to point out the incredibly large volume of media we consume daily. Media and entertainment are everywhere around us. On the streets, in newspapers, on the radio, on television channels, on computers, and our phones. Historically, we have never before had such great access to entertainment and stimulation. Our brains are simply not capable of processing such a large amount of information, which in turn affects how effectively we analyze what we encounter as well as how it limits our decision-making capacity. We may think that the abundance of choices is good, but we forget that this abundance overwhelms us. Marketers know this, which is why on websites we are mainly offered three choice options. Poor and cheap, excessively expensive, and the middle one that they actually want to sell us. Marketers and analysts know that if we are offered more than three options, there’s a greater likelihood that we won’t choose anything. Now extrapolate this example to our everyday lives, where we need to make hundreds of decisions a day and on top of it all we are fed a hundred different variants of the same event. We can’t handle it, which is why we choose the most easily digestible or accessible option.

Here are some examples of traditional media and how different news networks deliver exactly the same narrative.

https://youtu.be/487CRdRHEeI

https://youtu.be/xwA4k0E51Oo

Historical Consequences of Democracy

Subjectivity and self-deception are natural human phenomena, but being aware of these traits, we must learn to observe them. This is because long-term illusion distances us from reality, in turn creating new, deeper problems. Referencing Winston Churchill’s quote, “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried,” democracy may indeed be the best among bad options, yet it doesn’t make it good. The fact that our current situation is tolerable and has yielded some good only suggests that much work lies ahead and we shouldn’t settle for what we have now. The argument “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is also not pertinent as it implies that if the windows of a house are broken, there’s no problem since the foundation remains. If we settle for the good we have at the moment without critically examining the real situation and where it may lead us, we merely float in ignorance without preparing for what lies ahead. Looking back at the past, we see that history tends to repeat itself, and according to historical references, a rosy future is not what awaits us.

Democracy is always followed by a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, with partial democracy appearing in the transition period. Examples can be found in our recent and earlier history.

Turkey (2016) Although not a complete transition to totalitarianism, the consolidation of power by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, especially after the 2016 coup attempt, is strengthening.
Egypt (2013) After the 2011 revolution and a short period of democratic governance, a military coup led by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in 2013 led to an authoritarian regime.
Argentina (1976) The military coup in 1976 overthrew the democratically elected president Isabel Perón, resulting in a military junta ruling until 1983.
Chile (1973) Democratically elected President Salvador Allende was overthrown in 1973 by a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet, leading to a 17-year authoritarian regime.
Iran (1953) A CIA-backed coup in 1953 overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, strengthening the authoritarian monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Spain (early 20th century) The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) led to the establishment of an authoritarian regime under General Francisco Franco.
Portugal (early 20th century) Portugal transitioned from a republic to a corporatist authoritarian regime under António de Oliveira Salazar, who came to power in 1932 and established Estado Novo (“new state”).
Germany (early 20th century) The Weimar Republic, a parliamentary federal republic, gave way to Adolf Hitler’s totalitarian regime when he was appointed chancellor in 1933 and later consolidated power.
Italy (early 20th century) Following World War I, Benito Mussolini and his National Fascist Party came to power in 1922, transitioning Italy from a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system to a totalitarian fascist regime.
Russia (early 20th century) After a brief period of democratic governance during the provisional government in 1917, Russia transitioned to a totalitarian regime.
France (late 18th century – early 19th century) After the French Revolution aimed at establishing a republic, France became a totalitarian state under Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule.
Ancient Rome (1st century BC) The Roman Republic, with its system of checks and balances, transitioned to the Roman Empire during the time of Augustus Caesar. This marked the shift from a more democratic form of governance to an autocratic one.

Delving slightly into our civilization’s historical course, we see that the current democratic order is slowly cracking, and all the rot we have tried to plaster over is emerging. I tend to think that on a collective level we cannot go against our nature, but that does not mean we should hang our heads and cease discussions and striving for something better. Even if this striving may not be successful or may bring us to the same place as now, just under slightly different conditions. Every house can burn down for one reason or another, but that doesn’t mean we should stop building houses and figuring out how to build the subsequent houses better.

Discussion

Is an equal society impossible?

Looking at the world around us and our own hierarchy, it seems that an equal society is impossible. But why is that so? It seems that the first reason is our deceptive and rationality-ignoring animal part, which sets us certain, albeit vague goals and conditions, leaving us only partial comprehension freedom and the freedom to choose the approach from available options. The second main and (currently) inevitable reason seems to be our individual difference and diversity, which is rather positive i.e., justified in its existence, and its value is understandable, than negative i.e., something that needs changing or rooting out. Perhaps our natural empathy, concerning both our close and distant species mates, still misleads us? Maybe what we are looking for is not “equality” and “equal society,” but “solidarity” and “self-realization-promoting society”? If the world we are part of is inevitably hierarchical, then inequality is inevitable. Therefore, creating equality cannot be successful. Therefore, it seems that pursuing equality is a waste of time. On the other hand, solidarity and self-realization are experienced and achievable from human nature. And since striving for them is necessary for us and is expressed in empathy and the desire to ensure equality, we should instead direct our efforts towards redefining new values and creating conditions conducive to solidarity and self-realization.

Is the power struggle inevitable?

If equality is impossible and the world we are part of is inherently hierarchical, then the power struggle is unintentionally inevitable. This is because if real equality does not exist, then we are mainly defined by our differences, and considering the world’s hierarchy, through our differences and their different combinations, we fall into different hierarchical and division of labor positions. But even our peculiarities are somehow limited. Some of our differences stem from our physiology, which is due to our species specificity. These differences are like a row of vessels, where each vessel represents some quality, filled with different amounts. No vessel can be empty or contain more than its limit allows. Because if the vessel was empty or contained more than it can hold, it would no longer be human. The other part of our differences is defined through our environment and conditions, which are exhausted on our species peculiarities. These external differences color us culturally and add depth to our individuality. These environmental and condition-derived differences can either complement the illustratively present vessels in us or empty them, affecting our natural and conditional nature parameters and sensitive existence. Being humans, we are inevitably social animals, hence we are forced to synchronize our peculiarities in order for collective progress to function effectively. But since we are mortal, naturally different, and constantly located in a changing world while also being constantly changing with even more dynamically changing needs and desires – it can be concluded that there cannot be a statically ideal or suitable candidate for a position as both goals, conditions, and the environment change, changing the requirements the position holder must face. The power struggle seems to be inevitable also because if we are one part of a larger hierarchical world, then how can we step out of it or separate ourselves from it while staying within its boundaries so that we no longer have to either dominate or be dominated by something else? It seems

like an overly confident and impossible venture that may change our position, but not remove us from the pyramid or chain entirely. But to some extent going along with the idea of removing ourselves from the hierarchy, a question arises. If we found a way to remove ourselves from the hierarchy and cancel the need for a power struggle, would we still be human after that or would we already be something else?

Is the illusion of democracy bad?

From the previous discussion, it may seem that we are pursuing some utopian democracy where everything is beautiful, equal, and good. Far from it. The main goal is to develop this train of thought. Discuss the emergence of the initial thought and think about whether it is inevitable? Even independently of the truth of this inevitability, think about why we need to ask this question, how to approach it practically and what challenges to undertake? However, inevitable does not mean unfixable. We always have somewhere to move and problems to solve, even if solving problems brings new problems as it only makes life more colorful and interesting. However, it seems that we live in the illusion of democracy and its illusoriness is inevitable because the idea of democracy itself conflicts with the hierarchy of the world. It is inevitable because if we are already part of a hierarchical world and creating a hierarchical society is also in our nature, hence we always tend to it to some extent. Then how can we be so full of ourselves and naive to seriously believe that we can go against the whole nature that is within and around us? How can we think that with all the known connectivity of nature, we become democratic and tend to be one equal unit in the entire ecosystem? This idea seems ridiculous to me. The inevitability of living in the illusion of democracy is not bad at all. Firstly because inevitable does not mean bad. Secondly because what is inevitable is also natural and what is natural cannot be bad. It may be subjectively negatively uncomfortable or unpleasant, but only subjectively and rather from the perspective of the side suffering under the illusion of democracy. Those who profit from the functioning of the illusion of democracy would argue that it is rather good and regardless of whether it is natural or not. It seems to me that in the end we have no choice but to go with the flow and go along with our nature. Smiling towards the crash! The only thing we can really do is become aware of what is going on and forecast with some accuracy what lies ahead. Based on these observations and speculations, we can make some small improvements in our individual lives, which in turn would affect our close circles and consequently society. Yes, nothing guarantees us a better future or a certain outcome, and always solving one problem, we create a new one. But by solving individual problems and creating new ones, we still move towards some better idea, slightly affecting our own and the lives of the people around us. Despite the fact that the current democracy has become an actively decaying illusion, we have evolved and significantly improved the quality of life of the average person. Knowing that a new totalitarian order awaits, we can strive to make it last not long and not degrade our civilization too much. Each of us can strive to the best of our ability and capability to make our next democracy a little better than the previous one or maybe a new governing system would emerge that would be a little better than the previous ones we have already tried.

Author: Aleks Sakson
Comments and criticism: Liisi Keedus
English version editor: Aleks Sakson
Russian version editor: Aleksandr Dvoretsky

References

Follow on social media

Author: Alex

I’ve spend a decade working in advertising, social media and cultural industries, which have given me great insights into what’s going on behind the scenes.