Lies, fearmongering and fables: that’s our democracy | George Monbiot

People power can challenge the status quo, but only if we understand our political system has inherent flaws

What if democracy doesn’t work? What if it never has and never will? What if government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fairytale? What if it functions as a justifying myth for liars and charlatans?

There are plenty of reasons to raise these questions. The lies, exaggerations and fearmongering on both sides of the Brexit non-debate; the xenophobic fables that informed the Hungarian referendum; Donald Trump’s ability to shake off almost any scandal and exposure; the election of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who gleefully compares himself to Hitler: are these isolated instances or do they reveal a systemic problem?

Democracy for Realists, published earlier this year by the social science professors Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, argues that the “folk theory of democracy” – the idea that citizens make coherent and intelligible policy decisions, on which governments then act – bears no relationship to how it really works. Or could ever work.

Voters, they contend, can’t possibly live up to these expectations. Most are too busy with jobs and families and troubles of their own. When we do have time off, not many of us choose to spend it sifting competing claims about the fiscal implications of quantitative easing. Even when we do, we don’t behave as the theory suggests.

Our folk theory of democracy is grounded in an Enlightenment notion of rational choice. This proposes that we make political decisions by seeking information, weighing the evidence and using it to choose good policies, then attempting to elect a government that will champion those policies. In doing so, we compete with other rational voters, and seek to reach the unpersuaded through reasoned debate.

In reality, the research summarised by Achen and Bartels suggests, most people possess almost no useful information about policies and their implications, have little desire to improve their state of knowledge, and have a deep aversion to political disagreement. We base our political decisions on who we are rather than what we think. In other words, we act politically – not as individual, rational beings but as members of social groups, expressing a social identity. We seek out the political parties that seem to correspond best to our culture, with little regard to whether their policies support our interests. We remain loyal to political parties long after they have ceased to serve us.

Of course, shifts do happen, sometimes as a result of extreme circumstances, sometimes because another party positions itself as a better guardian of a particular cultural identity. But they seldom involve a rational assessment of policy.

The idea that parties are guided by policy decisions made by voters also seems to be a myth; in reality, the parties make the policies and we fall into line. To minimise cognitive dissonance – the gulf between what we perceive and what we believe – we either adjust our views to those of our favoured party or avoid discovering what the party really stands for. This is how people end up voting against their interests.

We are suckers for language. When surveys asked Americans whether the federal government was spending too little on “assistance to the poor”, 65% agreed. But only 25% agreed that it was spending too little on “welfare”. In the approach to the 1991 Gulf war, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they were willing to “use military force”; less than 30% were willing to “go to war”.

Even the less ambitious notion of democracy – that it’s a means by which people punish or reward governments – turns out to be divorced from reality. We remember only the past few months of a government’s performance (a bias known as “duration neglect”) and are hopeless at correctly attributing blame. A great white shark that killed five people in July 1916 caused a 10% swing against Woodrow Wilson in the beach communities of New Jersey.In 2000, according to analysis by the authors 2.8 million voters punished the Democrats for the floods and droughts that struck that year. Al Gore, they say, lost Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Missouri as a result – which is ironic given his position on climate change.

The obvious answer is better information and civic education. But this doesn’t work either. Moderately informed Republicans were more inclined than Republicans with the least information to believe that Bill Clinton oversaw an increase in the budget deficit (it declined massively). Why? Because, unlike the worst informed, they knew he was a Democrat. The tiny number of people with a very high level of political information tend to use it not to challenge their own opinions but to rationalise them. Political knowledge, Achen and Bartels argue, “enhances bias”.

Direct democracy – referendums and citizens’ initiatives – seems to produce even worse results. In the US initiatives are repeatedly used by multimillion-dollar lobby groups to achieve results that state legislatures won’t grant them. They tend to replace taxes with user fees, stymie the redistribution of wealth and degrade public services. Whether representative or direct, democracy comes to be owned by the elites.

This is not to suggest that it has no virtues; just that those it does have are not those we principally ascribe to it. It allows governments to be changed without bloodshed, limits terms in office, and ensures that the results of elections are widely accepted. Sometimes public attribution of blame will coincide with reality, which is why you don’t get famines in democracies.

In these respects it beats dictatorship. But is this all it has to offer? A weakness of Democracy for Realists is that most of its examples are drawn from the US, and most of those are old. Had the authors examined popular education groups in Latin America, participatory budgets in Brazil and New York, the fragmentation of traditional parties in Europe and the movement that culminated in Bernie Sanders’ near miss, they might have discerned more room for hope. This is not to suggest that the folk theory of democracy comes close to reality anywhere, but that the situation is not as hopeless as they propose.

Persistent, determined, well-organised groups can bring neglected issues to the fore and change political outcomes. But in doing so they cannot rely on what democracy ought to be. We must see it for what it is. And that means understanding what we are.


George Monbiot

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
How corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic | George Monbiot
A secretive network of business lobbyists has long held sway in US politics. Now their allies in the UK government are planning a Brexit that plays into their hands

George Monbiot

02, Feb, 2017 @6:29 PM

Article image
The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich | George Monbiot
George Monbiot: Billionaires control the political conversation by staying hidden and paying others to promote their brutal agendas

George Monbiot

18, Feb, 2013 @8:30 PM

Article image
Power is fragmenting. But what is the true cost to democracy? | Will Hutton

Will Hutton: Countries are now being held to ransom by special-interest factions – look at the Tea Party in the US or Ukip in Britain

Will Hutton

25, Aug, 2013 @2:00 AM

Article image
Nigel Farage: from Brexit hero to Trump’s little helper. That’s some career path | Marina Hyde
Some say Britain doesn’t make or export things any more. But we did supply Donald Trump with a straight man

Marina Hyde

26, Aug, 2016 @2:49 PM

Article image
Leaked documents reveal secretive influence of corporate cash on politics
Sealed Wisconsin court documents from Scott Walker investigation expose extent of corporate influence on democratic process rarely seen by the public

Ed Pilkington in Madison, Wisconsin

14, Sep, 2016 @11:46 AM

Article image
The Guardian view on climate change: good news – but not yet good enough | Editorial
Editorial: Eleven of the last 12 months have been the hottest on record. Though progress on cutting carbon emissions is encouraging, more must be done


23, Oct, 2016 @6:42 PM

Article image
Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it | George Monbiot
Many of his staffers are from an opaque corporate misinformation network. We must understand this if we are to have any hope of fighting back against them

George Monbiot

30, Nov, 2016 @6:00 AM

Article image
The Republicans who urged Trump to pull out of Paris deal are big oil darlings
Twenty-two senators wrote a letter to the president when he was said to be on the fence about backing out. They received more than $10m from oil, gas and coal companies the past three election cycles

Tom McCarthy in New York and Lauren Gambino in Washington

01, Jun, 2017 @10:00 AM

Article image
Dismayed by democracy? The alternative is far worse | Tom Clark
The twin prospects of Brexit and Trump may not appeal, but denying people the right to vote is much more dangerous

Tom Clark

19, Jan, 2017 @6:00 AM

Article image
A plea to Hillary’s Democrat critics: don’t hand the White House to Trump | Jonathan Freedland
Hostility to Clinton on the Sanders side is so deep that they are in danger of letting the Republican win

Jonathan Freedland

28, May, 2016 @6:00 AM