Suspected origins
Democracy and autocracy are not just words. Yes, both terms are of Greek origin, with the West’s fresh imperialist domination of the planet resulting in investigation and publishing being monopolized by the United States and the colonial metropoles in Western Europe. This monopoly came complete with the local European customized of drawing on the defunct classical languages of Greek and Latin erstwhile coining terms for technological phenomena, fresh technologies and the analysis of human societies.
The Greek neologism “autocracy” (αὐτός autós “self” and κράτος krátos “rule”) means a strategy of governance with a single individual at the top, that is, a dictator (from Latin dictare “to order”). In contrast, “democracy” (δῆμος dęmos “people”) denotes government by the people, with the ruled expected to govern themselves.
Autocracy
People are frequently beholden to autocracy, as the strategy is good at making fast decisions that mobilize all the state’s population and resources. someway it does not substance to the ruled that the dictator is simply a single individual with his (yes, invariably a male) own interests and the limited capacity for retrieving information. Hence, the autocrat’s decisions are seldom informed by an evidence-based process. They amount to the throw of a dice. With a stroke of luck, results of specified an arbitrary decision may be affirmative 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, frequently with the usage of force on a grand scale.
The ruled are besides beholden to autocracy, due to the fact that until late this strategy of governance was the worldwide norm following the emergence of the first agriculture-based empires in the mediate East and East Asia 5 millennia ago. In the sphere of social relations patriarchalism is simply a copy of autocracy, with the strategy 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 another 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 individual 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 no another but the typical autocrat of a mediate east agricultural empire writ large and projected onto the sky as a synonym for the universe. Unsurprisingly, in another tradition of mediate east origin – or “cesaropapism” – the autocrat on earth was imagined as being anointed by the sky divinity to be their typical both in matters temporal and spiritual.
This doctrine of the dictators combined regulation over the state and religion (in another 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 organization and its ideology replace religion in its sweeping functions of legitimizing the strategy of governance and explaining the (social) world.
This political arrangement of a spiritual hue continues to this day, for instance, in the communist polities of China, North Korea or Cuba. Recently, cesaropapism as a method of governance has been adopted by dictators of ideological persuasions another than communism. spiritual leaders themselves seized secular power, establishing theocracies (literally, “rule by god”) in Iran or Afghanistan. Similarly, secular monarchs search to legitimize their dictatorial regulation 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 regulation in emulation of that of the tsars, de facto extending his authority besides 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. specified 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 frequently punished, due to the fact that the autocrat knows best. specified individual or local initiative questions both the dictator’s omniscience and the legitimacy of his regulation 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, keep 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 circumstantial 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 strategy based on the constitution, which is the gist of the regulation of law.
Historically speaking, the basic elements of the democratic strategy 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 guarantee checks and balances between different branches of the government and state, preventing each from usurping the another branches’ prerogatives, which otherwise is the first step to dictatorship. From the position 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 head the then fresh memory of the spiritual wars, it was agreed that religion should become a private substance 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 planet War, democracy was a number 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 alternatively was spread) to Central Europe. Yet, the large Depression and the emergence of fascism did distant with democratic gains across this region in the 1930s. The Second planet War and the post-war domination of the totalitarian russian 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 past of Europe, practically ensuring the adoption of democracy across the full continent. The momentum was specified that the planet 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 economical 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 another arabian countries – convinced many democratically elected rulers across the planet to morph into autocrats.
This worldwide transformation benefited the autocrats and their coteries, while in most cases citizens did not argue the abandonment of democracy. In their eyes, this praised strategy 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 fresh one, which is unpredictable. Even more frighteningly, in awe of Beijing’s economical growth and the Kremlin’s expected 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 reasoning about politics and socio-economic relations. That a dictator of a appropriate 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 actual of this belief’s religious-like form, which claims that a non-attested divinity or a single individual (dictator) can solve all the world’s socio-economic and political problems without our own individual engagement.
The planet is simply a complicated place with 8 billion individuals organized in 200 states and millions of administrative or informal communities, each with their own circumstantial needs and interests, and for that substance 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 certain to produce an oligarchy. But he will never come up with comprehensive and decently 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 strategy known to us humans that can be utilized to deliver on this account. Yet, for the strategy to work optimally all must be active 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 nevertheless delivers richly the things that humans and their societies crave. These are namely stableness 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 simply a serious intellectual blockage indeed. These narratives say that nation-states are ancient and possibly 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 communicative of this kind closes people’s minds and shutters their imagination. Group emotions trump facts on the ground. As a result, Central Europeans are incapable 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 simply 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 any 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 head to admit that humanity is part and parcel of this biosphere and (for now) is incapable to be outside it.
Until the mid-20th century, the resources of water, air, land, fauna or vegetation were thought to be limitless. That humans could usage them without an end, and they would stay abundant. Now we know that this reasoning – 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, utmost weather events, shortage of water, or life-threatening levels of pollution. In a quest for profit, we wipe out full species or through deforestation turn immense 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 description Anthropocene, or the “human epoch”. Sadly, it is simply 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 likewise unprecedented rate. Unless the head-on collision between these 2 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 erstwhile only bones will stay of humanity.
Unfortunately, on the phase of global relations, all the states – either democracies or autocracies – behave like a bunch of quarrelsome autocrats. Each state stands for its own interests no substance what. There is no appetite for democracy in the sphere of global 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 global democracy that would let for pooling reasoning and resources with an eye to preventing or at least delaying the coming extinction of humanity.
The situation is simply a breeding ground for irrational hopes and decisions. Those of a spiritual bent propose that a monotheistic deity may yet intervene to set right what humans have bungled. Hence, there is no request to mitigate the adverse effects of human activity on the biosphere. In a more utmost version of this view, extinction is fine due to the fact that those who believe in the “true god” will be taken consecutive to heaven, erstwhile Armageddon happens. On the another hand, those who do not believe in any divine intervention may decide that wiping out an enemy in a atomic attack is now rational, due to the fact that shortly we all will die anyway.
Tomasz Kamusella is Reader (Professor Extraordinarius) in Modern Central and east European past at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. His fresh monographs include cultural Cleansing during the Cold War (Routledge 2018), Politics and the Slavic Languages (Routledge 2021) and Eurasian Empires as Blueprints for Ethiopia (Routledge 2021). His mention 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 east Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.
