With the advent of representative democracy over a century ago in most of the West, the popular belief was that the “rule of the few” would be relegated to the dustbin of history. This never happened, of course, as has become clearer to the “many” over the decades. Indeed, the ruling Western oligarchy has become more visible than before, too brazen in its attempts to ram through its globalist agenda on the world.
The illusion of representative democracy has also been fading as social and economic conditions in the West worsen. On the one hand, monetary and immigration policies that have been implemented over the long term, and without democratic legitimacy, are affecting the very fabric of Western societies. On the other hand, the democratic process itself has contributed to the growth of state interventionism for over a century, with disastrous effects.
For these reasons, representative democracy can certainly not be associated with freedom, notwithstanding the conventional wisdom. To do so would mean that the essence of freedom, namely, the protection of property rights, is pushed to the background. Democracy is not a bulwark against the violation of private property, on the contrary. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Nation, State and Economy (1919), “democracy is the best means for realizing socialism.”
The reality is that the political system known as representative democracy is not “democratic” in the etymological sense of “rule of the people.” Genuine popular rule can never be achieved by a political system. The only way the people can rule is when they are individually free, politically and economically. This should be the real definition of “democracy.”
Real Democracy Is the Right to Self-Determination
Politically, the rule of the people can only mean the right to self-determination. Mises defined it in this way: “democracy is self-determination, self-government, self-rule.” But he clarified that the focus is on the individual: “it is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.”
In other words, individuals should have the right to secede from a state, politically and legally, if they so wish. Thus, real “democracy” also means the right to secession; political freedom increases for any minority, region, or town that is allowed to decide not to be ruled by a particular nation-state.
Secession could naturally lead to the independence of the seceding unit. Such complete self-determination, in particular at the regional or township level would be an important move towards freedom for those concerned, because smaller states are generally freer and wealthier than bigger ones, as the case of Liechtenstein shows.
The transition to such self-determination from largely centrally-controlled societies is, of course, not straightforward. A first step could be an increase in support for the principle of subsidiarity and fiscal decentralization.
Actual secession would likely lead to thorny issues of settling private property claims and the possible voluntary relocation of individuals who reject secession. A large obstacle is the political one since, even though secessions do happen, such initiatives are usually harshly repelled by the controlling state, including in representative “democracies.” And when they succeed, it is often with the self-serving support of external political forces.
Real Democracy Is the Free Market
Economically, the rule of the people can only exist in the free market, where exchanges take place without any interference from the state. This is what Mises called in Human Action (1949), the “democracy of the market.”
It is the state’s intervention in the market that gives political power to the ruling minority and restricts in innumerable ways the development and progress of society, not least at an individual level. The majority can thus only have more influence over the direction of society through a limitation of this political power. An increase in freedom (i.e. more voluntary and unforced exchange) thus requires the reduction of state power over society.
The free market is the only social order that is based on popular sovereignty understood as the right to choose. Only the free-market economy allows the choices of millions of individuals to be considered—not once every few years at the ballot boxes—but every day, countless times a day for each individual. As Mises wrote, “Capitalism is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.” Real democracy can thus only exist in the free market.
Conclusion
These two descriptions of real democracy, namely, as the right to secession and as the free market, represent two sides of the same coin; the self-determination of the individual at a political and economic level. Real democracy can, therefore, only be freedom, in the sense of the absence of state intervention in society.
It is clear that the realization of such real democracy anywhere today would be difficult to say the least. Indeed, it may not come about in the pure forms described above. However, even from a pragmatic point of view, a wider recognition among the people of the principles and the benefits of self-determination has become absolutely necessary.
The statist impasse and social malaise in which Western societies currently find themselves makes urgent such an understanding of this other meaning of democracy. Public opinion cannot favor freedom today because of the restriction of the circulation of ideas of freedom in society combined with the prevailing statist propaganda.
As economic and political conditions worsen, it will therefore become more likely that a major crisis or political violence (or both) will make popular the idea that real democracy can only be freedom. The current times of uncertainty represent a risk of even tighter control from the top, but also an opportunity for liberty that should be seized.
