This is NOT another cliché about how great democracy is [Part 1]

This is NOT another cliché about how great democracy is

— Democracy and Dictatorship, a critical analysis

Disclaimer 1: This article contains certain opinion-based contents that, due to the dynamic nature and complexity of the topic, may unfold differently for different readers.

Disclaimer 2: The author of this article, The Prophet, vehemently opposes the idea and practice of communism. He is a devout supporter of freedom and democracy.

Communism, a word so fascinating yet controversial that it has been a taboo for many, even including the Leftists who are supposed to align with its intrinsic egalitarianism. Indeed, it is extremely easy for an average self-proclaimed “social-democrat” to agree with anything a communist would endorse: Gender equality? Definitely. Education-for-all? Awesome. Free healthcare? Fantastic. Labour rights? Magnificient. But when a link is drawn from each and every one of them to the word “communism” —

"Nuh-uh. I don’t support dictatorship.”

Unbeknownst to many, however, the same frustration has been experienced by pro-communists. When asked whether to be trapped in a liberal echo-chamber or a MAGA campaign, any sensible Marxist would go for the former without a hint of hesitation. They voted for Joe Biden; they hailed for LGBTQ+ rights; they couldn’t agree more with the BLM movement. Then why do they want so badly for a communist revolution?

“Because I hate capitalist dictatorship.”

And the opposite of dictatorship is, of course, democracy, a notion both liberals and commies would espouse. I say it’s a notion rather than an ideology or principle because, really, its definitions vary so much that they can hardly reconcile with one another. So when liberals make fun of country names like the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” (North Korea is technically not communist but this is just for example), Marxist-Leninists are often irritated when the Cold War is described as communism against “democracy”.

As early as 1946, the eminent British dystopian writer George Orwell, who was known for his criticism on authoritarianism in books 1984 and Animal Farm, took notice of such “political abuse” in his essay, “Politics and the English Language,”

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

Democracy as Most People See it

The definition most accepted by the Western general public defines democracy as “free and fair elections.” Regardless of its rules or style, a system is “democratic” as long as people have the right to vote — an inalienable right that is probably the greatest power of ordinary individuals in political representation. In other words — from a higher point of view — people in power justify their authority with the choice of the people. But something seems wrong here: the word “democracy” is of Greek origin, meaning “rule of the people.” How is it that the people are ruling when only a handful of individuals enjoy the right to decision-making?

This is when the concept of “Social Contract” comes in. According to the democratic theory, all citizens have signed an intangible contract with the government. Individuals will give some rights to autonomy while allowing elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf; in other words, let them “rule for the people”.

Like any political theories, there are inevitably flaws and false assumptions within the foundation of the social contract theory. In the best-case scenario, voters know what they want and who best represents them, and hence always make the decision accordingly and solemnly. But the sad truth is that they don’t. Homo sapiens is generally a politically stupid creature that can easily be indoctrinated by what is shown to them, which is quite understandable. Imagine you’re going on a trip by plane and you were wondering whether to take an Airbus A320 or a Boeing 737. Sure, you’re looking for a ride that is comfortable and secure, but, just as many other non-plane-lovers, you are absolutely ignorant of (and don’t care about about) the mechanism behind any plane model. You might have heard an unfortunate anecdote from a friend about an airline, and you’re like, oh, then I guess I’ll just not take that model.

The same is true for people that are not politically-aware — the vast majority of the population. The democratic theory assumes that people act upon an informed decision, but why bother to spend a few hours listening to a BBC podcast or checking a newspaper when you can just follow the mainstream? Even if you do actively check the news, how are you certain that you're not trapped in an information echo-chamber?

Remember when I said it’s the “choice” of the people? Such choices aren’t necessarily correct, and can oftentimes lead to a catastrophic outcome in the long term. Trump’s success in 2016 or Brexit cannot be simply regarded as black swan events; they are but inevitable consequences of any democracy systems.

Democracies vary greatly on the electoral system. One one side of the axis here’s the first-past-the-post voting, where the only candidate who receives the most votes wins. In the opposite is the proportional democracy, where seats are distributed based on the proportion of votes collected. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. While the proportional system in European nations gives minority voices a say in public affairs, first-past-the-post makes sure that extremist views do not break the balance of power.

Ultimately, though, all electoral systems are flawed and all men (and women) can be stupid. To address this issue pro-democratists have developed from years of experience a unique approach: who cares? Let the people decide for themselves. Voters are assumed to know best and, even if they don’t, they eventually will, after trials and tribulations, become closer to the truth.

Democracy as Communists See it

If democracy is so good, then why don’t all countries follow it? After all, how could commies proclaim themselves as democratic when they don’t allow elections whatsoever?

Now imagine there’s an island with 100 residents. They use elections to decide the leadership and each member has an equal amount of vote. Sounds familiar?

What if then, one random person is chosen and deprived of the right to vote? Is the system still democratic when only 99 members are involved in the election? 98? 97? 51? 49? 10? 5? 1?

What if no one is disallowed from voting but a charge has been put on every single vote and some indigent residents can’t afford it? What is the limit of the barrier?

What if some shady rich people on the island could purchase votes from their poorer counterparts?

These assumptions sound scary, but they are not exclusive to the fictional island mentioned above. In theory, all men are equal in the right to democracy. In reality, class distinctions exist. Voting barriers exist. There are people in the United States who work 12 hours a day and live a three-hour drive away from the nearest polling place. To take a day out of their work would be catastrophic to their basic job security, especially when it’s for something that doesn’t seem to bring a direct and tangible benefit. “How is one vote going to make a difference?” On the contrary, losing $100 from being absent from one day’s work seems more like a more imminent threat. Quoting from a previous [ink.] article by Ada Jolly,

“Many [American] states have [...] put barriers in front of ballot boxes, cut voting times, restrained registration and purged voter rolls. These efforts have resulted in significant drops in voter turnout, but have also placed burdens on racial minorities, the elderly and young voters. In 2016, voter suppression in more than 30 states led to the black voter turnout dropping by 7%.”

What is more concerning to political representation is something that has been along with democracy from its birth: capitalism. It is disingenuous to claim that every vote is valued the same; if this were the case, and if people living in capitalist democracies actually believe this, lobbyists would be out of business.

The truth is, as criticised by Marxist-Leninists, capitalist governments act in the interests of big businesses and leave the rest to fend for scraps. Politicians want power, and since these powers come from elections, almost all of their campaigns rely on funds provided by capitalist corporations. The impact of people’s voice is dwarfed by the political favours of large corporations.

Lenin described democracy as “restricted, cramped, curtailed, [and] mutilated” under capitalism. The proletarians, the poor working class, have little political representation if any due to the conditions of wage slavery, and the poverty and misery of the people. Even if they by any chance could vote freely by their will, it is more than likely that their choices are deliberately manipulated and inordinately restricted by the class in power.

The top of the hierarchy in a capitalist democracy is, indeed, a ruling class rather than a dictatorial individual. By nature, it camouflages itself so well as to convince the masses that the system is established on the basis of equal political representation, which the reality is the exact opposite. The condition of capitalism has thus corrupted the political system, creating privileged persons divorced from the people and standing above the people.

What’s the opposite of capitalist democracy?

After the Soviet Union’s ultimate success in the European theatre in WWII, several socialist nations were set up in Eastern Europe following the Soviet model. They were given the name “people’s democracies.” Though a tautology from a linguistic sense, the concept was intended to distinguish itself from the “bourgeois democracies” of the West. It is important to note that in the eyes of Marxist-Leninists, capitalism isn’t entirely non-democratic. They see it as democratic insofar as they grant voting rights to the general public as mentioned above. On the other hand, they regard their own system as more democratic for the removal of restrictions based on identity or property.

Prior to the establishment of socialist states in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union had developed its own full-fledged system of Soviet democracy. (Yes, Soviets believed that their system was not only democratic but a superior form of democracy to Capitalist democracy.) They justified it as democracy for the proletariats, for the people and for the majority. Leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, in his speech in 1936 introducing the new constitution lauded the Soviet system as more democratic than any hitherto seen. Stalin said that it provided “not only democratic freedoms” but also the “material means” for realising them. Furthermore, he intentionally emphasised that “the democratism [...] of the new Constitution is not ‘ordinary’ and ‘universally recognized’ democratism in general, but socialist democratism.”

What are these “material means”? For one thing, there is the “democratic centralism” concept brought up by Lenin. In theory (in reality this could turn out to be quite different), it meant that there could be a discussion of issues (the democratic component) until a decision had been reached, but thereafter the decision of higher party organs was binding and had to be implemented in a strictly disciplined manner throughout the party and society (the centralist component).

Quite contrary to what the general public in capitalist democracies was made to believe, there were elections in a communist “democracy,” though its importance and legitimacy varied from position to position (ranging from completely free elections in basic units collective farms to those in the top where voters have a choice only of being for or against the candidate nominated). At the end of the day, elections don’t mean much in a communist system and hence doesn’t serve to be the justification of power for the authority of officials.

Still, for the believers in capitalist democracy, one thing seems to be really confusing. If Communism claims itself to be democratic — more democratic — then why would commies use the notion of “proletarian dictatorship”? Isn’t it essentially admitting to their totalitarian nature? This remains the question to be answered by the next article. For now, have a very good weekend!