Ariel Sribman Mittelman *

@Latinoamérica21

As a society, we have not properly studied the knowledge at our disposal, which is available in every library about politics. We don’t understand what is happening to democracyand if reading a few works would be enough to understand him or, at least, get a little closer to him.

So we’ve spent almost a decade wasting oceans of ink decrying the decline of democracy. And the facts show that it was not profitable: not only was that decline not stopped, but it was expressed with increasing intensity. Instead of pointing the way out of the swamp with ink, we randomly spilled it into the oceans and are now drowning in them. Let’s limit this column to three pieces of knowledge that are available to us, and that no one seems to be paying attention to.

Folic acid in our day

First, forms of government. Classics like Plato, Aristotle or Polybius classified the existing forms of governments: direct rule of one (royalty), few (aristocracy), majority (democracy). Perverted rule of one (tyranny), few (oligarchy), majority (ohlocracy or demagogy).

“When talking about ‘chosen minorities’, common corruption tends to misinterpret the meaning of this term…” said José Ortega y Gasset. In the same way, ordinary thugs actively forget this classification of forms of government, which is as valid today as it was 2,500 years ago. It does so because it is uncomfortable: it involves a deviant, corrupted version of majority rule. And the prevailing demagoguery makes it impossible to even mention that the rule of the majority can be diverted: if it is not equal, it is not majority either. Democracy or dictatorship. Ohlocracy or demagoguery is inconceivable (or, to be fair, unspeakable).

What’s the problem? To eventually reduce everything that is not democracy to autocracy. And we do it without even blushing. In other words, we end up losing sight of the difference between Daniel Ortega and Jair Bolsonaro. And no, the difference is not that one is said to be on the left and the other is on the right. The difference is that you outlaw the opposition and thus prevent your people from actually voting in the elections. It is tyranny, autocracy. The other, in contrast, allows its citizens to express themselves through largely free and fair elections (barring small, if at all unsuccessful, attempts to subvert the results). But it turns out that practically half of the citizens vote for him again. The majority gives itself power that erodes democracy. It is not an autocracy, it is not a tyranny: it is a deviant majority rule. It is ochlocracy, demagoguery.

Nicaragua: expulsion of political prisoners

The second is a mixed government. When speaking of democracy, common depravity tends to misinterpret the term, but pretending to believe that we live in a pure democracy. Polybius explained 2000 years ago why the ideal form of government is mixed: monarchical, aristocratic and democratic components. In the republican Rome where he lived, the consuls constituted the monarchical element; senate, aristocratic element; and tribunes of ordinary people, democratic. Anyone who believes this is an old thing should know that barely two hundred years ago, when Hispanic America became independent, some constitutional assemblies proposed a mixed government as the optimal political system: the president as the monarchical element, the upper house as the aristocratic component, the lower house as democratic element.

If we read our current reality with a modicum of intellectual honesty, we will see something similar. The government, the legislature, the media, large companies and citizens create a balance of power with their ability to vote and demonstrate. In other words, mixed government. We are far from living in a pure democracy, and even further from realizing how lucky we are for it.

tribalism and democracy

Third, there is anacyclosis, a cyclical sequence of political regimes. Polybius once again explained that political life is cyclical. A righteous monarch (monarchy) leaves power as an inheritance to his children, and this in turn to his children. Through the generations, princes born into opulence and abundance are corrupted, becoming despots (tyranny) until the last one in the saga is overthrown by a small select group that rules justly (aristocracy). Over time, their successors become corrupted (oligarchy) until the people, fed up, eliminate them and take power into their own hands. At first it does it in the right way (democracy), but little by little its administration becomes corrupt (ohlocracy or demagoguery) and becomes anarchic. In order to end the chaos, all power is placed in one strong hand, which restores order (monarchy). Then the cycle starts again.

Considering Polybius, we would know that democracy, pure or not, will eventually give way to something else. It is not, like the usual misrepresentation, a process against nature. Quite the opposite: it is the most natural process. Natural does not mean desirable nor does it imply that we are not trying to prevent it. It is exactly the opposite: in order to try to stop it, it is necessary to know that this degenerative tendency is in its nature.

Considering Polybius, we would also know that democracy is not necessarily supplanted (again, the usual meanness) by autocracy. Far from it, it usually turns into demagoguery. And it is demagoguery that exposes societies to intolerable tensions, which end in outbursts that result in the seizure of power by a firm, upright or tyrannical hand. (OR)

Ariel Sribman Mittelman is a political scientist and professor of Latin American studies at Stockholm University. Doctor of political science from the University of Salamanca. He specializes in the succession of power and vice presidents in Latin America.