The Cyclical Nature of History: The Underlying Crisis of Democratic Politics

In principle and theory, democratic politics is grounded in equality of rights and equal opportunity for participation. Yet under liberalism—the very core value system of democratic politics—equality of rights and equal participation remain, in practice, little more than a beautiful myth. Innate human differences and entrenched social stratification render such equality largely devoid of real appeal or practical significance for the general populace. Consequently, democratic participation has devolved into an exchange mechanism tied to welfare distribution: political contenders secure legitimacy by pledging—and delivering—welfare benefits to voters. Thus, modern representative democracy no longer operates as a system rooted in universal and equal rights-based participation; instead, it functions as a transactional system wherein widespread entitlement to welfare is exchanged for political power and rights. This welfare distribution, however, is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution and scientific-technological progress—meaning the foundational logic sustaining modern democracy does not originate from democracy itself, but rather from industrial and technological advancement. Paradoxically, the high-welfare policies fostered by democratic politics are now eroding the competitiveness of industrial manufacturing and technological innovation: accustomed to generous welfare, citizens lose both the drive and the capacity required for industrial production and breakthrough innovation. This creates a profound paradox for Western democracies: industrial development provides the material basis enabling democracy to function, yet democracy—through its welfare-oriented incentives—is actively undermining the very engine of industrial development. Without welfare, democracy loses its operational foundation. Though democracy, in theory, rests on popular sovereignty—where representatives merely exercise authority delegated by the people—in practice, the interests of those who delegate authority and those to whom it is delegated rarely align. Representatives routinely act in accordance with their own interests, those of lobbying groups, or those of their peer constituencies; the claim that they represent the interests of the delegating public is often little more than politically correct rhetoric. Absent the welfare exchange, the grassroots population would increasingly question the legitimacy of ‘democracy’ itself—and seek alternative systems capable of providing legitimacy. Hence, representative democracy inevitably degenerates into an unalterable state of power being traded for material benefits (i.e., welfare).

[Reprinted] Alain de Benoist: The Current Crisis of Democracy

Beginning around 1875–1880, a new trend emerged—one that created the conditions for a different kind of crisis. The era of the ‘secure society’ and the ‘organized welfare society’ associated with social democracy began its decline, while pure liberalism surged to the forefront. Civil society received unprecedented special treatment, becoming the driving force behind a new stage of autonomous social organization. Economic liberalism re-emerged in a highly visible and assertive form, and capitalism progressively overcame all barriers—a process that culminated in its global triumph following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the ideology of human rights—long relegated to a purely symbolic and ornamental role, preserved as a revered concept for some future age—gradually assumed the trappings of a civic religion for the new era, serving as a culturally sanctioned consensus built upon the ruins of earlier ideological frameworks. At the same time, the nation-state proved increasingly ineffective and bereft of its former ‘splendid values’ when confronting contemporary challenges, while large-scale processes of individualization re-emerged across multiple domains—leading to the disappearance of all those grand collective projects that once formed the bedrock of ‘us.’ In the past, questions of mass and class dominated because individuals were understood exclusively through their group affiliations; today, mass society is being internally subverted by the individualism of the masses, severing individuals from their social backgrounds. This period also coincided with the virtual disappearance of rural society in the West (in France, for instance, farmers constitute only 1.6% of households)—a veritable silent revolution whose deep consequences have gone almost entirely unnoticed. It was likewise the era during which multiethnic societies became widespread due to large-scale immigration. To grasp this development, one must first understand the distinction between ancient and modern democracy. The former rests on the idea of self-organization within human society—describable as a political form of self-governance achieved through citizen participation in public affairs. Modern democracy, by contrast, is intrinsically linked to modernity—but this linkage occurs solely via its association with liberalism, a relationship that frequently undermines democracy itself. The profound root of the current crisis lies precisely in this unnatural alliance between democracy and liberalism. Gouhier describes liberalism as ‘the doctrine of the modern world.’ The term ‘liberal democracy’ joins two words as if they were mutually reinforcing; in reality, however, they are contradictory. Today, this contradiction has become glaringly evident—threatening democracy’s very foundations. As Gouhier puts it, ‘Liberalism places democracy in crisis.’ Chantal Mouffe correctly observes: ‘On the one hand, we have the liberal tradition of the rule of law, with its emphasis on protecting human rights and respecting individual freedoms; on the other, we have the democratic tradition, whose central tenet is equality, along with recognition of the sovereignty of the people—and of the relationship between rulers and ruled.’ There exists no necessary connection between these two distinct traditions—only a contingent historical convergence. Without recognizing this distinction, it is impossible to comprehend democracy’s current crisis—which is, at its core, a systemic crisis of that very ‘contingent historical convergence.’ Democracy and liberalism are fundamentally not synonymous. At critical junctures, they are even antithetical concepts. Non-liberal democracies (i.e., pure and simple democracies) are conceivable; so too are liberal governments that are not strictly democratic.

'People’s Dignity, and Democracy, Is at Stake': Meet the Economist Ditching Ideology for Reality

11 hours ago

Economist Isabella Weber advocates for anti-fascist economic policies to ensure affordability of essentials, citing multinational grain trading monopolies and fossil fuel dependency. She proposes government interventions, such as public buffer stock systems, to stabilize prices.

theguardian

2026-10-16

'People’s Dignity, and Democracy, Is at Stake': Meet the Economist Ditching Ideology for Reality

'People’s Dignity, and Democracy, Is at Stake': Meet the Economist Ditching Ideology for Reality

FAQ