Democracy or autocracy: what is the choice about?

"The Passage" - a sculpture in Wrocław by Jerzy Kalina. Photo: Vladyslav Horoshevych / Shutterstock

Suspected origins

Democracy and autocracy are not just words. Yes, both terms are of Greek origin, with the West’s recent imperialist domination of the world resulting in research and publishing being monopolized by the United States and the colonial metropoles in Western Europe. This monopoly came complete with the local European custom of drawing on the defunct classical languages of Greek and Latin when coining terms for scientific phenomena, novel technologies and the analysis of human societies.

The Greek neologism “autocracy” (αὐτός autós “self” and κράτος krátos “rule”) means a system of governance with a single person at the top, that is, a dictator (from Latin dictare “to order”). In contrast, “democracy” (δῆμος dêmos “people”) denotes government by the people, with the ruled expected to govern themselves.

Autocracy

People are often beholden to autocracy, as the system is good at making quick decisions that mobilize all the state’s population and resources. Somehow it does not matter to the ruled that the dictator is a single person with his (yes, invariably a male) own interests and the limited capacity for retrieving information. Hence, the autocrat’s decisions are rarely informed by an evidence-based process. They amount to the throw of a dice. With a stroke of luck, results of such an arbitrary decision may be positive for the majority of a given state’s inhabitants. Yet, statistically speaking, this method of governance ends in grief, benefiting a tiny elite and repressing the rest, often with the use of violence on a grand scale.

The ruled are also beholden to autocracy, because until recently this system of governance was the worldwide norm following the emergence of the first agriculture-based empires in the Middle East and East Asia five millennia ago. In the sphere of social relations patriarchalism is a copy of autocracy, with the system emulated and repeated time and again at the levels of family, village, town and regional communities. Furthermore, autocracy and patriarchalism brushed off onto religion in the shared Abrahamic tradition, entailing the adoption of monotheism. This involves a belief in a single omniscient and personalized deity (to the exclusion of any other deities). This deity in question is imagined to be a male, who created and rules all the universe. The arrangement includes humanity, who were created in this deity’s personal likeness. Under the deity’s protection and blessing humanity was given unrestricted dominion over the world, meaning the planet of Earth.

Such a human-like god of monotheistic persuasion is none other but the typical autocrat of a Middle Eastern agricultural empire writ large and projected onto the sky as a synonym for the universe. Unsurprisingly, in another tradition of Middle Eastern origin – or “cesaropapism” – the autocrat on earth was imagined as being anointed by the sky divinity to be their representative both in matters temporal and spiritual.

This doctrine of the dictator’s combined rule over the state and religion (in other words, people’s minds and beliefs) and formally survived until the early 20th century. It is epitomized in the “caliph-sultan” of the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire’s “tsar-autocrat”. The tendency, though officially denied, was revived in communist autocracies, where the dictator doubles as the sole ruler of the state and the unquestioned head of the communist party. This party and its ideology replace religion in its sweeping functions of legitimizing the system of governance and explaining the (social) world.

This political arrangement of a religious hue continues to this day, for instance, in the communist polities of China, North Korea or Cuba. Recently, cesaropapism as a technique of governance has been adopted by dictators of ideological persuasions other than communism. Religious leaders themselves seized secular power, establishing theocracies (literally, “rule by god”) in Iran or Afghanistan. Similarly, secular monarchs seek to legitimize their dictatorial rule through religion, be it in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, in the likeness of the Ottoman caliph-sultan model. The sitting Russian president for life refashioned the arrangement of his rule in emulation of that of the tsars, de facto extending his authority also over the country’s Orthodox church as another branch of power.

In Venezuela, the populist dictators toying with Cuban-style communism captured all temporal power and usurped control over the minds of the ruled by claiming to “know better” than the “immature” citizens. Such a “civic religion” hinging on the dictator’s persona can be observed among many of the world’s populist dictatorships, be it in Turkey and Belarus, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, or Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe. Recently, with the aid of social media (as pioneered in Russia) and having been democratically elected, aspiring dictators have attempted to establish likewise cesaropapist populist autocracies in Brazil and the United States, or in Hungary and Poland.

Democracy

In an autocracy, people are asked or compelled to place their lives and livelihood in the dictator’s hands. No initiative on the part of the ruled is required. On the contrary, showing initiative is often punished, because the autocrat knows best. Such individual or local initiative questions both the dictator’s omniscience and the legitimacy of his rule that rests on the claim to religiously or ideologically justified omnipotence.

Under the democratic conditions of governance, it is up to the citizens themselves to organize, maintain and legitimize the institutions of power and state as they see fit. However, this must happen in line with the main principles of democracy, the specific actualization of which in each polity is agreed upon in a constitution. In a democratic state there is no omnipotent god or cesaropapist dictator to whom the ruled could turn for the sole “true and correct” decision. It is alone up to the citizens (or their representatives informed by their electorates’ interests and wishes) to work out a working solution to a problem at hand. Furthermore, the decision must be taken within the framework of the legal system based on the constitution, which is the gist of the rule of law.

Historically speaking, the basic elements of the democratic system of government developed in late medieval and early modern Western Europe. They included constitutions, the separation of church and state (religion) and the tripartite division of power for the state institutions. These arrangements ensure checks and balances between different branches of the government and state, preventing each from usurping the other branches’ prerogatives, which otherwise is the first step to dictatorship. From the perspective of the state’s population, the adoption of legalism (rule of law), equality before law and popular suffrage was indispensable for implementing democracy. In addition, bearing in mind the then fresh memory of the religious wars, it was agreed that religion should become a private matter with no bearing on the functioning of the state.

The first democratic states emerged in a piecemeal manner like Britain or Switzerland, or through a citizen-driven revolution, as in the cases of the United States or France. Until the First World War, democracy was a minority form of governance in Europe, practically limited to North America, Western Europe and Scandinavia. Afterward, thanks to the arrangements reached at the peace conference in Paris, democracy spread (or rather was spread) to Central Europe. Yet, the Great Depression and the rise of fascism did away with democratic gains across this region in the 1930s. The Second World War and the post-war domination of the totalitarian Soviet Union over this region prevented the re-introduction of democracy in post-war Central Europe.

The fall of communism constituted a point break in the history of Europe, practically ensuring the adoption of democracy across the entire continent. The momentum was such that the world chose to emulate Europe. Tens of postcolonial polities in Africa, Latin America and Asia decided to turn democratic. It appeared that the “end of history” had been reached, with (almost) all agreeing that the optimal systems of governance and economy are democracy and capitalism, respectively.

It was a vain hope. After squashing the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere across China, Beijing pressed on with capitalism in its economy, but stuck to communist totalitarianism in politics and the sphere of social relations. China’s economic success proved that capitalism works well both in democracies and autocracies, even those of the most repressive totalitarian turn. This realization – coupled with the liberal and democratic West’s impotence in light of repeated challenges from resurgent neo-imperial Russia, proponents of theocracy in Afghanistan and Iran, or outright autocrats in Syria and other Arab countries – convinced numerous democratically elected rulers across the world to morph into autocrats.

This worldwide transformation benefited the autocrats and their coteries, while in most cases citizens did not oppose the abandonment of democracy. In their eyes, this praised system of governance had not provided for them as initially hoped. Hence, reverting to the tried out autocratic ways seemed rational. It is easier to outfox the old devil you know than the new one, which is unpredictable. Even more frighteningly, in awe of Beijing’s economic growth and the Kremlin’s supposed imperial success, citizens in established democracies have begun to dream about dictators with a strong hand.

Laziness breeds autocracy

Giving in to authoritarianism indicates a profound laziness in one’s thinking about politics and socio-economic relations. That a dictator of a proper ideological (confessional) persuasion may come, take control of the state and put everything right. But this widespread populist belief is totally unsubstantiated. The same is true of this belief’s religious-like form, which claims that a non-attested divinity or a single person (dictator) can solve all the world’s socio-economic and political problems without our own personal engagement.

The world is a complicated place with eight billion individuals organized in 200 states and millions of administrative or informal communities, each with their own specific needs and interests, and for that matter speaking 8,000 different languages written in 600 different writing systems. A dictator with the typical human brain retrieval capacity of dealing with up to 150 individuals is sure to produce an oligarchy. But he will never come up with comprehensive and properly trialled working systems or equitable legal solutions that would balance out and meet needs in a typical polity with tens of millions of inhabitants.

Democracy is the only system known to us humans that can be used to deliver on this account. Yet, for the system to work optimally all must be involved in its workings. Each person’s voice must be heard and discussed with others at an appropriate level of state institutions or social organization. It is hard work, which however delivers richly the things that humans and their societies crave. These are namely stability and prosperity for all, not just for a narrow oligarchy, which is the norm in autocracies.

Laziness of national master narratives

In Central Europe, national master narratives constitute an additional stumbling block in the way of democracy. It is a serious mental blockage indeed. These narratives say that nation-states are ancient and potentially eternal. This anachronistic belief, not supported with evidence, is instilled in society at large through education, politics and cultural life. The goal is to produce statewide ideological platforms of emotional attraction on which politicians successfully win power in this or that nation-state by evoking and referring to a selection of foundational myths drawn from a given national master narrative.

The narrative of this kind closes people’s minds and shutters their imagination. Group emotions trump facts on the ground. As a result, Central Europeans are unable to grasp the pre-national pasts of their countries in their own non-national terms or see beyond the national present. After all, in a long-term perspective, the future will not be national in its character. Nationalism, like all ideologies is a human creation that people developed, adopted, implemented in the observed socio-political practice, and most surely will abandon in exchange for something else after some time.

Laziness kills

Yet, the current age’s biggest problem is the impending exhaustion of the planet’s biosphere. Let us have the clarity of mind to admit that humanity is part and parcel of this biosphere and (for now) is unable to exist outside it.

Until the mid-20th century, the resources of water, air, land, fauna or vegetation were thought to be limitless. That humans could use them without an end, and they would remain abundant. Now we know that this thinking – as informed by the Bible, which claims that humanity was given “dominion” over the planet – is utterly incorrect. We as humans, due to the overuse and abuse of the aforementioned natural resources, now face global warming, extreme weather events, shortage of water, or life-threatening levels of pollution. In a quest for profit, we wipe out entire species or through deforestation turn huge swathes of land into deserts. These are symptoms of the biosphere under stress. The worsening situation leaves millions at the edge or already outside the habitable ecumene, or the biological (natural) niche of the human species in this biosphere.

Neither democracy nor autocracy have at their disposal any instruments of governance or a focused programme to address this existential danger, beyond dubbing it with the Greek label Anthropocene, or the “human epoch”. Sadly, it is a misnomer. In reality, the unprecedented natural growth of humanity (or the demographic explosion) races against the shrinking of the biosphere, which takes place at a similarly unprecedented rate. Unless the head-on collision between these two phenomena is prevented, the extinction of humanity is imminent and assured in the geological sense (though reduced from tens of thousands of years to hundreds). Hence, the suitable name for this looming epoch is that of the post-human age. The time when only bones will remain of humanity.

Unfortunately, on the stage of international relations, all the states – either democracies or autocracies – behave like a bunch of quarrelsome autocrats. Each state stands for its own interests no matter what. There is no appetite for democracy in the sphere of international relations (with the qualified exception of the European Union). No theoreticians of political thought or leaders of global stature strive for developing basic principles of international democracy that would allow for pooling thinking and resources with an eye to preventing or at least delaying the coming extinction of humanity.

The situation is a breeding ground for irrational hopes and decisions. Those of a religious bent propose that a monotheistic deity may finally intervene to set right what humans have bungled. Hence, there is no need to mitigate the adverse effects of human activity on the biosphere. In a more extreme version of this view, extinction is fine because those who believe in the “true god” will be taken straight to heaven, when Armageddon happens. On the other hand, those who do not believe in any divine intervention may decide that wiping out an enemy in a nuclear attack is now rational, because soon we all will die anyway.

Tomasz Kamusella is Reader (Professor Extraordinarius) in Modern Central and Eastern European History at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. His recent monographs include Ethnic Cleansing during the Cold War (Routledge 2018), Politics and the Slavic Languages (Routledge 2021) and Eurasian Empires as Blueprints for Ethiopia (Routledge 2021). His reference Words in Space and Time: A Historical Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe is available as an open access publication.

Please support New Eastern Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.

autocracy, communism, democracy, history, political system