Hello. I’m Bry from Philosophics blog, and this is my YouTube channel. This video is a short summary and review of The Problem with Democracy. If you like this content, please Like and Subscribe. If you want to be notified of new content, click the bell icon.
The Problem of Democracy was written by Alain de Benoist in French and published in 1986. The English translation was published in 2011. This is the version being reviewed. I give The Problem with Democracy 3 of 5 stars.
To be fair, I’d have given it 4 stars if not for the content of his proposed solution, but this gets 2 stars or even 1 star, bringing the average to 3. In this book, Benoist provides some well-documented historical perspectives on Democracy since before Ancient Athens.
In fact, as he argues elsewhere, Democracy as a concept predates Athens by quite a bit and is evident in many non-Western cultures. He cites strengths and weaknesses from various perspectives. And perspective is important. What’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander.
Note that the title is The Problem of Democracy. The central thesis is not that democracy has problems, but that democracy is itself a problem. To add to this, it’s been implemented poorly. As a frame of reference, Benoist is a right-wing political thinker, so we share opposing worldviews. Don’t let this put you off.
We still have common ground, and his critique remains valid Chapter 1: The Ancients and the Moderns. In this chapter, Benoist argues that democracy is not inherently modern or progressive, as democratic practices and tendencies existed throughout history in various forms. He challenges the common view that Athenian democracy was the first true democracy, arguing
Many pre-Athenian societies had democratic features like popular assemblies and elected leaders. Benoist states Athenian democracy was based on a shared sense of belonging and citizenship tied to one’s origin and heritage rather than abstract individual rights. He contrasts the Athenian view of liberty as participation in the collective life of
The polis to the modern notion of individual autonomy and universal rights. Ancient democracy was communitarian and centred on organic social bonds, whereas modern democracy focuses on egalitarian individualism inherited from Christianity and Enlightenment thought. For Benoist, the notion of direct vs representative democracy is less significant than differing
Concepts of community, belonging, and the relationship between individual and society. He advocates revisiting ideas of organic community and shared belonging from ancient democracy rather than purely individualist and procedural features of modern democracy. So in summary, Athenian democratic citizenship was based on hereditary ethnic belonging rather than individual merit or choice.
Your political rights derived from bloodline and generations of ancestry tied to the land itself. A problem I have with Benoist throughout this book is that the definitions of words used to support his position are either undefined or poorly defined.
This is particularly curious insomuch as he calls others to task for using ambiguous terms. Chapter 2: A Defence of Democracy. To be fair, Benoist attacks as much as he defends democracy here, but let’s jump in. Benoist argues there is no single best political system for all times and places.
The goodness of democracy cannot be proved absolutely. Again, he contends democracy is not inherently modern or progressive. Democratic forms existed throughout history, though different from modern liberal democracy. The principles of democracy have been criticised by both left and right as leading to division, mediocrity, materialism and the tyranny of the majority.
However, Benoist states non-democratic regimes can also be oppressive. Links between democracy and totalitarianism exist. A main criticism is that democracy gives power based on quantity (majority rule) not quality. But competence is multidimensional, and voters can discern competence. I disagree with him on this account, but let’s move on.
Benoist defends the generic competence of people, especially when bonded by shared identity and values. This is crucial for democracy’s legitimacy. He distinguishes between decision-making votes and votes appointing decision-makers. The people’s will differs from majority opinion. The notion of “Will” remains somewhat undefined, and I am left thinking it’s some metaphysical stand-in.
Democracy’s aim is not truth per se, but political decision-making. Majority rule is an imperfect means, not an absolute value. Benoist contrasts liberal individualist democracy with organic communitarian ancient democracy rooted in shared belonging. He advocates aspects of direct democracy and strong government authority, arguing democracy does not negate elites but reshapes them.
In summary, Benoist defends democracy against common criticisms, but calls for a version truer to its origins, based on the organic unity of a people defined by common bonds. Chapter 3: Popular Sovereignty and Pluralism. Benoist examines the concepts of popular sovereignty and representation in democracy.
He contrasts Rousseau’s view of direct democracy with liberal representative democracy. He argues representation easily leads to rule by a political class rather than true popular sovereignty. Representatives embody the people’s will rather than just expressing it. Benoist upholds the idea of an indivisible national sovereignty residing in the people
Or nation rather than individual representatives. He notes the risk of the general Will becoming tyrannical, cautioning against identifying majority rule with truth. Minority rights and pluralism are examined. Pluralism threatens to dissolve the unity of the people and general will in his view. But unchecked majorities can also lead to conformity and tyranny.
Benoist grapples with the issues of freedom of speech for anti-democratic opinions, and whether pluralism should be unlimited or bound by a national spirit and shared values. He remains sceptical both of direct majoritarian democracy and liberal representative democracy, preferring an organicist view of the people as a collective agent of sovereignty.
In summary, the chapter explores the complex tensions between popular sovereignty, representation, majority rule, and pluralism in democratic theory and practice. Benoist favours a communitarian middle path. A problem I have is that he cites no mechanism regarding how this works. Rather, he relies on magical thinking. Chapter 4: The Crisis of Democracy.
Benoist argues modern representative democracy has failed to live up to its ideals and disappointed many. He sees a growing crisis of legitimacy. He contends representation diminishes popular sovereignty, giving power to a political class rather than the people. Politicians rule, they are not simple delegates.
Factors like party oligarchy, the role of money and media, lack of accountability, and rhetorical politics promote disillusionment. Benoist also critiques the notions of public opinion, information transparency, and voting as expressions of the general will. Political apathy is increasing as people feel powerless and lose faith in the system. Depoliticisation fosters technocracy.
Keep in mind that he wrote this in 1985. This was very prescient. He is sceptical that elections truly appoint leaders or foster participation. The range of choices is narrowing as platforms converge. Benoist suggests democracy is becoming a hollow ritual that confers legitimacy on politicians without real popular sovereignty.
He argues elections have not proven an antidote to oligarchy or despotism. Links between democracy and totalitarianism exist. In summary, Benoist sees modern representative democracy as an impoverished version of ancient ideals of direct participation, with a growing crisis of legitimacy. Chapter 5: Towards Organic Democracy.
Whilst the previous chapters were a setup to describe the pros and cons of Democracy, this final chapter is about solutions. Benoist argues size is less an obstacle to direct democracy today due to decentralisation of power and growth of local governance. Referendums are another tool.
He advocates promoting forms of direct participation like municipal associations and cooperatives to foster grassroots democracy. Benoist calls for a conception of popular sovereignty based on the historical roots of democracy, not liberal individualism. He defines democracy as maximum participation and wants to expand beyond just voting to new forms of consent and self-governance.
An organic democracy would see collective identity as primary rather than abstract rights. People are an organic unity, not atomised individuals. Benoist proposes grounding democracy in the notion of fraternity within a folk or nation, not universalist brotherhood. He outlines an alternative, communitarian vision of democracy true to its origins and
Anchored in shared belonging, sovereignty and participation. In summary, Benoist’s concluding vision is of a more direct, organic democracy that prioritises cultural identity and social solidarity within a unified people or nation. He offers a strong critique of liberal democracy throughout.
Please note that this is a summary and review of Benoist’s book The Problem of Democracy. I happen to agree with some if not all of his criticisms, but this review is not about the philosophy. I’ll reserve that for future content.
In the end, Benoist’s solutions are weak tea ideas he seems to have mailed in rather than subject them to the same scruntiny as his observations and criticisms. He is partial to an Ethno-local solution, something that might look good on paper, yet
There are so many challenges with the notion, and the pluralism that so offends him will always remain. He doesn’t even mention the challenges intersectionalism brings, and although he criticises external factors on culture, like religion, this is already ingrained in most cultures and psyches, but he just sort of hand-waves it away.
I recommend reading this book. I’d say to ignore the last chapter, but it’s a handful of pages, the shortest chapter by far, so you might as well just read it. So that’s it. This has been Bry from Philosophics blog, and this is my YouTube channel.
I hope you enjoyed this short video on The Problem with Democracy. If you like this content, please Like and Subscribe. If you want to be notified of new content, click the bell icon. Cheers!
source
