Why It’s Democracy Failing And Not Capitalism
The very concept of representative democracy assumes the existence of a common ethical standard that is almost certainly beyond the actual human capacity for it.
Written by: David Matthews
To become a doctor or engineer, a high level of proven intelligence, knowledge, and competence is required before official certification is granted and practice of the profession permitted. Western society is understandably unwilling to permit incompetent or unqualified individuals to treat its illnesses or build its bridges.
On the other hand, any unqualified narcissist or psychopath may walk in off the street and become a politician. For some unfathomable reason, society makes virtually no demands in regard to the integrity or competence of the people into whose hands it duly places the reins of political power. What does it say about our collective intelligence, or about representative democracy itself, that we are so careful in respect of the qualifications of our doctors and engineers, but so indifferent to the character and ability of the politicians who are to control the entire democratic political process, and so society itself, on our behalf?
Capitalism is an ancient economic system, well suited to human nature, that functions naturally in an open market when there is no authoritarian political system, such as feudalism, fascism, socialism, or communism, to interfere with its workings for their own political ends. In essence, it consists of the deferment of consumption by individuals, and the utilisation of the capital saved in competitive investment in privately-owned means of production, at the owner’s risk, in the hope of earning a profit. Whether or not any profit is earned, depends upon the entrepreneur’s ability to satisfy the customers that capitalism serves. It is by far the most productive and genuinely moral of all economic systems known to humanity, and is largely responsible for the extraordinary improvement in living standards that has taken place in the West since the 18th century.
Basic capitalism, however, should not be confused with the plethora of financial and economic regulation and legislation subsequently attached to it by those intent on securing their own economic advantage from it at the public cost. The manipulation of interest rates by a central bank is not capitalism. Quantitive easing is not capitalism. Fiat currency is not capitalism. Financialisation of the economy is not capitalism. And so on, and on.
Despite capitalism’s achievements, clearly something is indeed failing in regard to the political and economic system currently functioning in the West. This is indicated by the enormous growth in public and private debt, the maldistribution of wealth, and increasing class conflict, among other things. As most of these negative features are financial, it is popularly suggested that it is the economic system of capitalism that is failing. This may be true, but there is a far more likely cause of the failures. On the balance of probability, is it more likely that the ancient and highly successful economic system of capitalism is suddenly failing, or that the politicians referred to above are corrupting the democratic process within which it operates, for their own benefit? In other words, is it capitalism or the democratic political system of representative government itself that is failing?
The principal reason that democracy might be failing is in all probability to be found in the current system of representative government that was selected in the West in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The weakness of representative democracy rests in the fact that it relies upon an assumption regarding human nature that is simply unrealistic. This assumption is that all, or at least the great majority of its elected representatives, will put the collective interests of the nation ahead of their own interests while serving in the legislature. Unfortunately for this assumption, humans are principally self-interested creatures, and politicians are no exception. Frankly, it is dangerously credulous to expect them to behave idealistically and selflessly once they are elected to office, in contradiction to their innate human natures, as if they were a priesthood dedicated to the altruistic service of society. Even over a century ago, when public ethical standards were arguably higher than they are today, this requirement would not have been rational.
Taking into account also the previously mentioned fact that the public in the Western democracies does not require any proof of intelligence, competence, knowledge, or integrity of its politicians, charm and charisma seeming to suffice, surely it is recklessly - even stupidly - naïve to imagine that representative democracy, as presently constituted, is a political system capable of supporting and maintaining authentic democracy over time? The success of democratic representative government, after all, is predicated absolutely upon the necessary existence of a representative body, all, or the great majority of whose members are honourable and incorruptible – with this imperative repeated over centuries, time and time again. How realistic is the unspoken requirement that this will be consistently attained?
Contributing to the problem is the relatively very small number of elected representatives found in both chambers of all the principal Western legislatures. There are on average only 808 political representatives in each bicameral legislature. What, realistically, is there then to stop the powerful and wealthy vested interests in each society from corrupting sufficient of the representatives to get them to serve those vested interests, wholly or partially, rather than the interests of the people who elected them?
The very concept of representative democracy assumes the existence of a common ethical standard that is almost certainly beyond the actual human capacity for it. If this is not attained, then democracy will very likely metamorphosise into an oligarchy, or a corporate state. So, is it capitalism that is currently failing, or is it democracy itself?
David Matthews is an author and contributor to the Rational Standard.