The Farce of Western Democracy: Psychological Domination
Dean Ferguson Sayers

The problem of moral state – building has usually been met with a strong focus on overt authoritarianism and a neglect of psychological factors that influence human actions. If a specific person or group of people is directing others against their will, they are thought of as reprehensible. Inversely, it is considered acceptable to cause a person to do something through other means, such as propaganda, or even unintentional authoritarianism, such as social or economic pressure. Governments allow these forces to entropy amongst the population, even encouraging it in some cases.

The idea of mental health is democratic; the majority is thought of as mentally healthy in nearly all instances, and this health is thought of as brought about through a person’s ability to adapt to society and their ability to compromise. In fact, what is called the ability to adapt (more accurately called complacency) and the ability to compromise represent a serious lack of willpower and convictions. Despite consensus’s regard for the acceptance of minorities (whether they be minorities for their race, religious beliefs, sickness, or opinions), society is not expected to adapt to man. It is good if a sick or disabled person can adapt to society, but if they cannot, the state has no responsibility for their well – being; this is Social Darwinism. The original idea of democracy – that is, that [it is better for the majority to be wrong than a minority to have power] – has been replaced with the idea that the majority is inherently right. This does not seem so irrational until one considers that there have been times when the majority has felt that the earth was flat, or that feudalism was a necessary evil. In this way, man is not only an end, but also a means to an end; the more productive (or more accurately, the more cunning) will succeed; a person may be exploited for their labor as a means to the manager or the stockholder’s end.

A new, humanistic kind of order involves the idea that a state must not only allow freedom, democracy and individualism, but also facilitate it. In it, society is expected to adapt to man and man is never a mean; only an end. Psychological manipulation is therefore minimized, and society is accommodating for all people. The only freedoms denied are those that would deny the freedoms of other people.

Freedom is not only impeded upon by overt authorities, but also by more passive authorities such as the social and economic promotion of conformity. Just as a person will find comfort in such things as consensus and nationalism, a person will find necessity in economic conformity. If a person cannot find an adequate career track in industrialized nations, he will be without realistic subsistence or at best in a situation where he must rely on his social abilities to have them procured to him. However, there do exist wholly inadequate programs in most of these nations which will provide for, on average, a squalid life. Similarly, in society conformist inhibitions are promoted as such qualities as civility or decency. A deeper psychological factor that inhibits is marketability, a person’s capability to find a mate, to possess friends, to feel secure and one with others. This also effects economic necessities with the need to be able to market yourself as a skilled worker. A person is only free if he consciously and actively chooses by what his actions are limited.

The modern western idea of democracy seems to center around the act of voting: when you vote, you are thought of as being in a democratic society. This is not entirely idolatrized, however. If a country is known for rigging elections (Chile) or for having elections with members of the same party or single candidates (Cuba and China) they are not thought of as being democratic, and rightly so. But this only focuses on the most overt and symbolic part of a democracy. If we are to look more closely at any of these societies, we will plainly see that party machines, consensus and propaganda effect the outcome of the election more than the consideration and free will of the voters. In the United States, two very similar parties dominate the elections, and issues are decided not through contemplative thought, but by the focus that the elections hold, and each party lines up on the opposite side, but not far from the middle. In this way, they are more parallels of each other than opposites; they also retain the ability to recruit members from the opposition due to the parties’ similarities. This grants a huge degree of power to entities that are not responsible to the will of the people. Because issues are managed through the private committees of a party machine and used to appeal to people, as opposed to a democratic process within the party.

Another issue to consider when criticizing a democracy is the elements of bureaucracy. In many, if not all of today’s industrialized nations, republicanism has been reduced to bureaucratism. The voter does not play an active role in his government’s decisions, but instead chooses a person to do this for him. This attempts to allow the public to both play a role in it’s government and to be free for work and leisure. In the crucial point, that is that of the political element, this is a dismal failure. Because the public is made to feel that only a vague awareness of politics is acceptable, that is all that they will consider in the field. In voting, they merely have the choice of candidates, not of ideas. Because most candidates attempt to appeal to the conscious opinions of the vast majority, they will misconstrue their true platform, cater to big business for funding, and cater to the barbarous emotions of the populous. This does not only appeal to those unaware of the manipulation, however; many who can consciously see it feel that it is impossible to change this, and will still support the candidate, if less willingly.

This alienation from the workings of the government creates a seriously un-democratic society. For a society to have a working democracy, the people must have a much more active role in the legal process; whether it be by the town meeting, through labour unions or other small groups. Ideas cannot be adequately considered unless there are discussions amongst small groups of people on them. This would also work to uphold the rights of minorities, because they would always have a voice in their legal processes.

I have to credit Erich Fromm for many of the arguments on psychology, largely taken from “Escape from Freedom.” More information on him can be found on this page.