A violent mob isn’t democracy

January 31, 2021

Reading Time: 5 min

Nonviolent citizen movements are the bedrock of democracy. Violent mobs are its enemies. Which ones will prevail will depend on the strength of our institutions and the actions of those with power.

The Capitol riots of 6 January produced some shocking pictures from the cradle of American democracy. They also produced some of the laziest journalism in years. A recent editorial in the Economist was a particularly startling example. Its main point was: democracy is people power; if you believe in “people power” then you believe in everything that comes with it, including armed insurrection. There followed a bit of finger-wagging “I told you so” for the liberals. The article relied on Plato’s Republic, of all books, to fortify its claims.

Let’s set the record straight.

1. Citizen action is democracy; armed insurrection isn’t

There are many differences between women protesting against sexual harassment and fanatics convinced that the country is run by Satan-worshipping pedophiles, planning to use explosives-filled vans during their coup attempt. A key one is the former group’s commitment to nonviolence.

One of the central tenets of the Altruist League’s investment model in citizen action is that we only fund organizations that reject violence, and believe in working through the institutions of the system in order to change it. In other words, we support movements which are fundamentally democratic. If it must be pointed out, there was nothing democratic about the assault rifle-wielding mob inside the Capitol.

2. The danger is weak institutions, not democracy

Before the Russian Revolution, the country was an absolutist monarchy, ruled by a tsar. It had been weakened beyond recognition by war, economic problems and famine, and was being run by an inept interim government.

Before the Nazis came to power, the Weimar Republic was a weak quasi-democracy run by a government woefully unable to grapple with the popular discontent and the many fires across the economy and the society.

The only common characteristic between the two contexts is that their institutions had practically crumbled and become irrelevant. The extremists simply stepped in almost unopposed.

A system with strong institutions is neither the equivalent to mob rule, nor particularly prone to being overthrown by violent extremists. This holds for iron-fisted dictatorships but also for stable democracies. If there has ever been a revolution in Switzerland I would like to hear about it. I’ll grant that it’s much more exciting to read about violent upheavals; in functioning societies there’s little to report, and so we tend to overlook them.

3. Instability comes from oligarchy, not democracy

So why have American institutions become weakened?

The oft-quoted passages from Plato’s Republic depict a clearly superior form of government to democracy: a group of “guardians” raised from childhood to run the society and act in the public interest. Is it better to have god-like creatures directing the advance of civilization than to leave it all to mortal citizens? Of course. The problem – those people don’t exist, and never have.

We are already living Plato’s dream. The United States is a de facto oligarchy with democratic elements. A handful of people control all the wealth; a few dozen have any chance of winning the highest offices in elections; a few hundred appear on television at all. Those are the people that rotate ad infinitum, and everyone else is a spectator that gets called on from time to time to choose which slightly different oligarchy he or she prefers.

So, are things better? Is the society more stable? Is progress faster? Or people on the ground, both nonviolent and violent ones, basically rebelling against the oligarchy, partly because different factions in the oligarchy have been feeding them misinformation through the media they control?

Make no mistake, in an oligarchy-democracy the instability comes from the oligarchy part, not the democracy part.

4. Call to change: lead, adapt or perish

The Republic is one of the most important texts in the history of philosophy. Its method of examination and presentation were revolutionary. As for the structure of society and government it proposes, twenty-four centuries later nearly all of that is outdated and irrelevant.

Our system has many flaws and needs constant improvement. Most of those improvements need to be made in the direction of making it more democratic. Those won’t come as proposals from warrior-kings but from the society itself.

Among the oligarchs, the visionary ones will have an opportunity to lead change and leave a lasting legacy. The stubborn ones with contempt for anything beyond personal privilege will eventually face the mob, equally dismissive of norms and institutions.