Book Review: Beyond Democracy

The book Beyond Democracy by Frank Karsten and Karel Beckman was published in 2012 and was recently translated by Anwar Adnan, eight years after its release.      

       The book, which presented its main idea with the phrase “Why democracy does not lead to unity, prosperity, and freedom, but rather to instability, uncontrolled spending, and authoritarian government,” spans over 100 pages. It includes a preface, an introduction, a section titled “Democracy: The Last Taboo,” and another on “The Democratic Faith.” The first chapter addresses 13 myths of democracy, while the second chapter discusses the crisis of democracy, its faults, and includes sections titled “Why Do Things Keep Getting Worse?” and “Why We Need Less Democracy.”

       In the third chapter, the authors present their alternative ideas to democracy under the title “Towards a New Political Model,” and another titled “Decentralization in Switzerland.” The authors chose to conclude with a section titled “A Bright Future.”

Preface:

The authors pointed out at the beginning of their book that criticizing democracy, as done in this book, may seem illogical to people, even bordering on madness. In fact, this is a natural reaction. After the fall of communism and the celebration of democracy as the rightful alternative, with the oppressed around the world yearning for more freedom and democracy, who would dare speak against it?

       The authors emphasized that their strong criticism of democracy does not imply that the alternative is dictatorship or depriving people of living under a political system that grants them freedom. Moreover, the problems they discuss in this book are not necessarily exclusive to democracy.

       Therefore, in this work, the authors explain the fundamental issues within parliamentary democracy, arguing that the principles and drivers of this highly praised system no longer lead to the desired outcomes today.

       The evidence for this lies in the crises that have escalated in many democratic countries, particularly in the United States, Greece, and Spain, where these problems are not attributed to the democratic system itself but rather to the free market, lack of democracy, greedy bankers, or corrupt politicians.

       The authors explained that this is a natural outcome, as we have all fallen victim to an educational system, media, and politicians who have ingrained in us the belief that democracy is something to be cherished and expanded, and that there is no rational alternative. However, after studying and reflecting on it, the authors reached a conclusion that is entirely different from what has been ingrained in people’s minds.

       The book Beyond Democracy refutes the concepts of democracy, asserting that it is the opposite of freedom. One of the inherent characteristics of democracy is that it tends to result in less freedom, not more. This is something that cannot be corrected or reformed, as democracy is a fundamentally flawed collective system, much like socialism.

       This is not the first time such unconventional and unique ideas about democracy have been presented. Hans-Hermann Hoppe previously authored an academic book titled Democracy: The God That Failed, in addition to a few other articles on this topic. However, according to the authors, there hasn’t been a concise, organized, and easily readable book that highlights the inherent weaknesses of the driving forces of democracy from a libertarian, freedom-loving perspective like this one, which comes at the perfect time given the many social and economic problems facing numerous democracies, problems for which people are seeking explanations and solutions.

       The authors state that this book does not place the blame on politicians but rather on the democratic system itself. It’s impossible to criticize politicians who have been elected. Naturally, they will act inadequately, knowing that their time in power is temporary. This leads them to behave greedily, imposing excessive taxes and borrowing excessively, fully aware that future generations will bear the costs.

       Moreover, they are spending other people’s money, not their own. So what can we expect from them? The authors ask whether you would behave any better if you were in Congress, and their answer is: I doubt it.

Introduction:

       In the introduction, under the subheading “Democracy: The Last Taboo,” the authors criticize the notion that “if there are any ailments plaguing democracy today, they can only be cured with more democracy.”

       In this section, the authors discuss how many people refuse to acknowledge that the parliamentary democratic system is in crisis, despite being deeply dissatisfied and divided. Politicians complain that voters behave like spoiled children, while citizens complain that politicians are deaf to their desires. Voters have become fickle, routinely switching their allegiance from one political party to another, and are increasingly drawn to radical and populist parties.

       Meanwhile, political parties have no answers and are incapable of developing real alternatives. Their leaders are stuck in rigid party structures, their ideals controlled by special interest groups and lobbyists.

       At the same time, democratic governments are performing poorly in carrying out what many consider their most important duty—maintaining law and order. Crime and vandalism are rampant, the police and justice systems are unreliable, and they are often completely corrupt.

The Democratic Faith:

       Despite the widespread acknowledgment of democracy’s crisis, there is, according to the book, almost no criticism of the democratic system itself. In fact, criticizing the idea of democracy is somewhat taboo in Western societies. It is not an exaggeration to say that democracy has become a religion—a modern secular religion, as the authors summarize it.

       You might even call it “the world’s greatest religion,” where God and the Church have been replaced by the state as the sacred father of society, and elections are the rituals through which we pray to the state for employment, housing, health, security, and education.

       The authors suggest that only “truly wicked minds” dare to speak against such a sacred idea, clearly referring to “terrorists, fundamentalists, and communists.”

Democracy – Collectivism:

       Under the heading “Democracy = Collectivism,” the authors emphasize that parliamentary democracy has far more obstacles than benefits. It is inherently unfair, leading to bureaucracy and stagnation, undermining freedom, independence, and entrepreneurship, and inevitably resulting in conflict, interference, inertia, and excessive spending. This is not because certain politicians fail to perform their duties or because the wrong party is in power, but simply because “this is how the system works.”

       The authors discuss how democracy, by definition, is a collective system, meaning it is socialism through the back door. In other words, in democracies, every aspect of society is structured around the state.

       They also conclude that freedom is not the same as democracy and provide examples to illustrate this point. According to the book, the only alternatives people can imagine are forms of dictatorship, such as the Chinese model, or some form of nationalism or fundamentalism.

       However, democracy does not equate to freedom; it is merely another form of dictatorship—a dictatorship of the majority and the state. It is not synonymous with justice, equality, unity, or peace, as the authors assert.

Chapter One: Myths of Democracy:

Myth 1: Every Vote Counts

       The authors discuss how the ruling class continually urges people to vote, presenting it as a moral obligation that ensures their rights. However, what truly matters to them is that a high voter turnout provides them with a moral mandate to govern the people.

       They point out that some people refuse to believe in the illusion of influence that democracy sells. As for those who remain enamoured with democracy, the book describes them as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome: “They have come to love their captors without realizing that they are trading their independence for the power that politicians and managers hold over them.”

Myth 2: The People Rule in a Democracy—Do They Really?

       The book clarifies that the first problem is that “the people” do not actually exist. There are only millions of individuals with an equal number of opinions and interests. How can they rule together? It is impossible. Moreover, it is not “the people” who decide in a democracy, but rather the majority of people. It seems that the minority does not belong to “the people.”

       There are two types of democracy: direct and indirect (representative).

       In direct democracy, everyone votes on every decision, as in the case of referendums. In indirect democracy, people vote for others who later make decisions on their behalf. The authors critique the arguments for indirect democracy in this section.

       The book explains that it is not the will of the people that governs in a democracy, but rather the will of politicians, controlled by professional lobbying groups, interest groups, and activists. Major oil companies, large agricultural corporations, big pharmaceutical companies, the healthcare industry, the military-industrial complex, and Wall Street all know how to manipulate the system in their favour.

       A small elite makes decisions, often behind the scenes, with little regard for what the people want.

       Another myth the book describes is the common belief that democracy is a good way to limit the power of rulers. However, in reality, rulers can do whatever they want.

Myth 3: The Majority Is Right:

       The book explains how it’s difficult to see how the democratic process necessarily leads to good or correct outcomes. Just because many people believe in something doesn’t make it true. There are many examples from the past of collective delusions. For instance, something doesn’t become just or morally right simply because a large number of people support it, as the authors point out.

       The shameful truth is that people often support democracy because they hope or expect to be on the side of the majority, where they can benefit from the plundering of others’ wealth. In democracy, ethical considerations are often overridden by the will of the majority. Quantity trumps quality, and the number of people desiring something can outweigh considerations of ethics and rationality.

       The book quotes 19th-century British writer and politician Auberon Herbert, who described the logic and ethics of democracy, saying: “Five people in a room, because three people have one opinion and two have another, do the three have any moral right to impose their view on the two others? What magic power comes to the three people that, because they are more in number by one than the other two, suddenly makes them the owners of the minds and bodies of the others? As long as it was two against two, we might think that each person remained the master of their own mind and body, but the moment a third person, motivated by whatever impulse heaven alone knows, joins one side or the other, that side suddenly becomes the owner of the souls and bodies of the other side.”

       Was there ever a myth more degrading and unjustified than this?!

Myth 4: Democracy Is Politically Neutral:

       Contrary to how democracy might appear, it actually adopts a specific political direction. If the majority (or rather, the government) wishes, they can decide that everyone must wear a light when walking on the street for safety or dress like clowns because it makes people laugh.

       The book emphasizes that there is no sacred individual freedom in democracy, leaving the door open for constant government intervention. In reality, increasing government intrusion is exactly what happens in democratic societies.

       In short, democracy is not politically neutral. This system is inherently collectivist and leads to more and more government intervention and less and less individual freedom. The book argues that democracy, at its core, is a totalitarian ideology. There is no sacred freedom in democracy; every aspect of an individual’s life is subject to government control. Ultimately, the minority is entirely at the mercy of the whims of the majority.

       Even the constitution can be amended by the majority. The only fundamental right you have in a democracy, aside from running for office, is the right to vote for a political party. With that one vote, you hand over your independence and freedom to the will of the majority. The book concludes that with democracy, you must accept what the majority has chosen, whether you like it or not.

Myth 5: Democracy Leads to Prosperity:

       The book reveals the truth that Western countries are not prosperous because of democracy but despite it. Their prosperity is attributed to the tradition of liberalism that distinguishes these countries.

       As a result, the state does not yet have complete control over its economy. However, this tradition is being steadily weakened by democracy.

       The book discusses what is known as “the tragedy of the commons.” It explains that democracy functions in a similar way, as citizens are encouraged to gain privileges at the expense of others or to pass their burdens onto others.

       Politicians are elected to manipulate this system. They manage public properties, but they do not own them, so there is no need for them to be economically prudent. On the contrary, this drives them to spend as much as possible to gain praise while their allies bear the costs.

       What matters more to them than the long-term interest of the country is their need to satisfy the voters.

       This mentality also drives them to take as much as possible while they are in charge of the public treasury, knowing that once they leave office, they can no longer enrich themselves. In this disastrous system, as the authors describe, massive government debts are the result of large budget deficits, which—unsurprisingly—are suffered by almost all democratic countries.

       The authors continue: The decay runs deeper. Our democratic politicians not only collect taxes and then squander them but have also managed to gain control over our financial system through central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank.

       Democratic governments decide what constitutes money (legal tender), how much money is created and pumped into the economy, and what the interest rates will be. At the same time, these governments sever the link between money, paper, and inherent values like gold. Thus, all sudden economic booms are later revealed to be bubbles that eventually burst. These bubbles only occur because markets are flooded with easy debt, and all players can carry this debt in their pockets.

       However, these situations cannot last forever. When it becomes clear that repaying the debt is difficult, the bubbles burst, leading to economic recessions.

Myth 6: Democracy is Necessary to Ensure a Fair Distribution of Wealth and Help the Poor:

       The book presents examples from democratic countries, supported by numbers, to prove the fallacy of this myth. The use of statistics and figures strengthens the authors’ argument. For instance, they cite the Netherlands, a traditionally democratic welfare state, where the Social and Cultural Planning Office (a government agency) reached a conclusion in a report published in August 2011. The report found that the middle-income groups in 2007 received less government assistance than both the middle- and high-income groups. In fact, researchers discovered that the high-income groups received the largest amount of government assistance!

       According to the authors, democracy is supposedly necessary to help the poor, but in reality, the needy are often used as a cover for the self-interest of those who benefit from the redistribution machine.

Myth 7: Democracy is Necessary to Live Together in Harmony:

       In reality, if everyone simply pursues their own desires, living together becomes impossible. This is the argument the authors present.

       The democratic decision-making process often generates conflicts because various personal and social issues are turned into collective decisions. By forcing people to adhere to democratic decisions, democracy leads to antagonistic relationships among people instead of fostering harmony.

       The book points out that new political figures, initially celebrated as saviors, always end up disappointing people. No politician can achieve the impossible, no matter how many promises they make at the beginning.

       The authors quote American writer H. L. Mencken, who said, “What people value in this world is not rights, but privileges.” He added:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

       The authors also note that the word “we” is the most abused term in democracy. Proponents of any action often say, “We want something,” “We should do something,” “We need something,” “We have the right,” as if everyone naturally agrees. In reality, what they mean is that they want something but don’t want to take responsibility themselves.

       For instance, people might say, “We should help the Third World,” or “We should fight in Afghanistan,” but they never say, “I am going to help the Third World, who’s with me?” or “I am going to fight the Taliban.” Democracy, therefore, offers a convenient way to shift personal responsibility onto others by saying “we” instead of “I,” with 99.999% of the burden of the decision falling on others.

       What is called unity in democracy, the authors explain, is ultimately based on force. But coerced unity is inherently contradictory. True unity must involve voluntary action. You can’t say that someone who was robbed in the street showed unity with the robber, no matter how noble the robber’s goals may have been.

       In conclusion, the authors argue that those who use the democratic system to impose unity do so because they don’t have to pay for it themselves. There is no justification for forcing others to do what you want.

Myth 8: Democracy Is Indispensable to a Sense of Community:

       In a democracy, any difference in opinion leads to a struggle for power and resources, with one group winning at the expense of others. Everyone makes demands on the state, and the state forces other citizens to fulfill these demands.

       The book explains that it is difficult for things to be otherwise because, no matter what, the state is merely an instrument of power that operates through coercion.

       As a result of this system, people become spoiled, constantly demanding more from their rulers and complaining when they don’t get what they want. At the same time, they have no choice but to participate in the system because if they don’t, their money will be forcibly taken from them by the rest of the population.

       In this way, the system undermines people’s self-reliance, their ability to support themselves. At the same time, it erodes people’s willingness to help others, as they are already forced to do so. People’s mindset today has become so democratic that they no longer realize how unsocial their actions and thoughts have become.

       The book poses the question: Is democracy necessary for such a sense of unity? The answer: It’s hard to see why.

       When you talk about a society, you’re talking about more than just a political system. People share a common language, culture, and history. Every country has its historical heroes, famous figures, sports stars, literature, cultural values, moral principles, and way of life—none of which are linked to the democratic system. All of this existed before democracy, and there’s no reason to believe that it couldn’t continue without it.

       At the same time, no country has a completely unified culture. Within every country, there are significant differences among people. Many regional and ethnic communities have strong shared bonds, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. Within the framework of a free society, all these social formations and harmonious communities can coexist.

       The difference between these social groups and democracy is that democracy is an organization where membership is mandatory, while a true community is based on voluntary participation.

Myth 9: Democracy Equals Freedom and Tolerance:

       One of the most persistent myths about democracy is that it equates to “freedom.” For many people, freedom and democracy are as inseparable as the stars and the moon. However, the authors argue that freedom and democracy are actually opposites. In a democracy, everyone must comply with the decisions of the government, as it is elected by the majority. Coercion remains coercion, whether enforced by a majority or a single ruler.

       The book explains that in a democracy, no one can escape the decisions made by the government. If you do not comply, you will be fined, and if you refuse to pay the fine, you may end up in prison. In this sense, there is no fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship.

       Freedom, according to the book, means that you are not required to do what the majority of your peers demand, but that you can decide for yourself. As economist John T. Wenders once said, “There is a difference between democracy and freedom; freedom is not measured by the opportunity to vote, but by how much we do not vote on.”

       In a democracy, not only must you do what the government tells you, but you also need government permission for nearly anything you wish to do. All the freedoms we possess in a democratic nation are granted by the state and can be taken away at any time.

       The point is that there is nothing inherent in the democratic system or the principle of democracy that guarantees minority rights. Yet, many people do not want to give up these freedoms, even as the spirit of freedom is eroded by democratic intrusion.

       The book highlights that in other parts of the world, people are less attached to personal freedoms. Many non-Western democracies do not care much about individual freedom. The authors give an example of how Palestinians in Gaza democratically elected the “freedom-disdaining fundamentalists” Hamas, which, ironically, was not accepted by the United States and other Western democratic governments, despite being elected through democratic means.

Myth 10: Democracy Promotes Peace and Helps to Fight Corruption:

       The authors explain that democracies often appear to be quite warlike. For instance, the United States, the most powerful democracy in the world, has initiated dozens of wars, carried out numerous coups, overthrown governments, supported dictators, and dropped bombs on peaceful civilians, including atomic bombs.

       Currently, the United States maintains forces in more than 700 military bases across over 100 countries, spending on defense almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

       Similarly, “democratic Britain” invented concentration camps (as in South Africa) and was the first nation to suppress nationalist opposition in its colonies through aerial bombing, destroying entire villages (as in Iraq in the 1920s).

       Another version of this myth claims that democracies do not go to war with each other. However, since World War II, a significant number of Western countries, which happen to be democracies, have been united in NATO and show little desire to attack one another. But this does not necessarily relate to democracy, nor does it mean that democracies have historically been peaceful towards each other.

       The book provides examples of wars and clarifies that democracy does not necessarily bring more transparency or accountability, as is often claimed.

       The book made it clear that in reality, the fact that politicians need votes to be elected encourages corruption. They need to do something for their voters to win votes. This type of corruption is particularly prevalent in the United States, known as “pork-barrel politics.”

       American politicians often go to great lengths to secure federal funding or programs for their states and districts. Additionally, they tend to be pawns of powerful lobbying organizations that supply them with money for their expensive election campaigns. Moreover, the revolving doors in Washington have become infamous, where influential individuals move from politics to business or the military and back again without any shame.

       Other democratic countries experience similar forms of corruption, while in developing nations, democracy almost always goes hand in hand with corruption. The same applies to countries like Russia, Italy, France, and Greece. Corruption is almost inevitable wherever the state holds significant power, regardless of the political system, and this certainly includes democracy.

Myth 11: People Get What They Want in a Democracy:

       The reality is quite different from what democracy promotes. In a democratic system, education is managed by politicians and bureaucrats, who decide how it is organized and how much money is spent on it.

       After examining the socialist system of the Soviet Union, the authors concluded that democracy inevitably leads to a degree of socialism. What applies to education also applies to other sectors controlled democratically, such as healthcare and crime control.

       Democracy does not deliver what people want. People vote for politicians who promise to combat crime, but the result often turns out to be more insecurity rather than less.

       The book highlights the poor performance of the police as a direct result of being democratically controlled. The police are granted a monopoly on law enforcement, and the organization receives more funding the fewer criminals they arrest. Thus, if the police successfully reduce crime, their budget will be cut, and officers may lose their jobs.

       The authors explain that if you want to prove that democracy does not fulfil its promises, consider how, in every election, politicians admit that the government has created chaos. Each time, they promise to change everything for the better—education, security, healthcare, and more. But they always offer the same solution: “Give us more money and power, and we will fix the problems.” However, this never happens, because the root of the problems lies in the money and power held by these politicians.

Myth 12: We Are All Democrats:

       If democracy truly fails to deliver what people want, the authors ask: why do most people still support it? Isn’t it because every rational citizen is inherently democratic, even if they sometimes complain about the government?

       They argue that the second statement is debatable. Whether people truly believe in something is determined not by what they say, but by what they do when they have the freedom to choose.

       A person living in a democratic state who claims to support democracy is akin to a citizen of the former Soviet Union who says they would choose a “Lada” car even if given the option to choose a “Chevrolet” or “Volkswagen.” It might be true, but it’s unlikely. Just like the Soviet citizen had no choice but to pick a “Lada,” we have no choice but to support democracy.

       After discussing this idea, the authors conclude: “For our own sake and for the sake of our peers around the world, we should advocate for freedom, not democracy, because we have reached a point where a fraudulent House of Representatives will do anything that can garner majority votes.”

Reasons People Tend to Support Democracy:

       The authors then ask: why do we all think that we are democrats? The precise answer, they suggest, is that we are constantly told so. Our schools, media, and politicians all convey the message that the only possible alternative to democracy is dictatorship. Given democracy’s “divine” status as a bulwark against evil, who would dare oppose it?

Myth 13: There Is No (Better) Alternative:

       The book addresses the notion that if you declare yourself against democracy, people immediately suspect you of being in favor of dictatorship. However, the authors argue that this is nonsense; dictatorship is not the only alternative to democracy.

       The authors reference Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” They also cite Francis Fukuyama’s assertion in his book *The End of History and the Last Man* that “the global spread of liberal democracy as the final form of human government” assumes there is nothing better.

       This line of reasoning, the authors suggest, stifles any criticism of democracy before it can even begin. In reality, they argue, the trend in these countries is somewhat the opposite—towards increasing centralization.

       For instance, Europe is becoming more centralized to the extent that Germans can decide how Greeks should live and vice versa. In this massive democracy, countries can offload the consequences of their short-sighted economic policies onto the populations of other countries, much like how citizens in a national democracy can live at the expense of other citizens. This, they argue, is the logic of democracy on a European scale.

       The larger the democratic state, the more diverse its population, and the greater the tension that will arise.

       The authors then ask: why can’t people organize themselves differently from how they do in countries where the people rule, perhaps in smaller communities? They discuss how decentralization is strongly opposed by democratic rulers and is often made impossible. If democracy were truly a good system, one would expect it to allow people the choice of voluntarily joining or withdrawing from the democratic nation. But this is not the case.

       The authors argue that the smaller the administrative units, the more homogeneous the population and the more limited the excesses of democracy. This would create a competitive spirit among regions, bringing laws closer to what people want, and making governance more dynamic and less bureaucratic. Additionally, regions could learn from each other by experimenting with different policies.

Chapter Two: The Crisis of Democracy:

       In this chapter, the book summarizes the story of democracy, which initially emerged as a promising model for empowering the people. However, after 150 years of practice, its outcomes have proven to be less than positive. It has become evident that democracy has turned into an authoritarian force rather than a liberating one.

       Democracies have followed a similar path to socialist states, becoming inefficient, corrupt, oppressive, and bureaucratic. This decline is not due to the model being undermined but rather because of the inherent collective nature of the democratic system itself.

The Sins of Democracy:

       The book highlights the reality that people will increasingly become dependent on the government. It emphasizes that this approach is fundamentally flawed and cannot work in the long run. The government cannot fulfill all demands, and ultimately, politicians will resort to the only actions they are capable of:

– Throwing money at problems.

– Creating new rules and regulations.

– Establishing committees to oversee the implementation of these rules.

       In reality, there’s little they can actually do. As politicians, they can’t even cover the costs of their initiatives, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

       The authors conclude this section by stating that the consequences of this system can be observed daily: bureaucracy, parasitism, paranoia, the welfare state, antisocial behavior and crime, mediocrity and low standards, and short-term thinking.

Why Things Keep Getting Worse:

       The book explains that many people have a vested interest in the continuation of the democratic system. As the government slowly grows, this group expands along with it.

       Politicians are rarely held accountable for actions that turn out to be harmful in the long run. Instead, they are praised for their good intentions and the immediate, positive outcomes of their programs.

       The long-term consequences, such as debts that need to be repaid, are left to their successors. As a result, politicians have little incentive to implement programs that will bear fruit only after they leave office, since future leaders will receive the credit. This is why democratic governments always spend more money than they take in.

       They solve the problem by raising taxes, or—since people resent paying taxes—by borrowing money or simply printing it.

       Despite all the problems democracy brings us, the authors note that we continue to hope and believe that after the next election, everything will change, keeping us stuck in a vicious cycle.

       The book likens citizens in a democracy to alcoholics who need to drink more and more to stay intoxicated.

Why Do We Need Less Democracy?

       The authors pose the question: How long can we continue like this, considering the growing dissatisfaction in society and the incapacity of the political and economic system?

       Fortunately, they answer, there is another way, though many people might find it difficult to imagine: less democracy and more individual freedom.

Chapter Three: Towards a New Political Ideal:

       In the final chapter, the book explores how a libertarian model would look in practice. The authors argue that it is an illusion to believe that the problems faced by our society can be solved with more democracy, and an even greater illusion to think that democracy is the best system among all proposed.

       They point out that blind faith in democracy in our society is not a given; in fact, it is a relatively new phenomenon. Many conservative intellectuals and classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries, including renowned thinkers, were opposed to democracy.

       Edmund Burke said, “Of this I am certain, that in a democracy, the majority of citizens are capable of exercising the most cruel oppression upon the minority… and that oppression by the minority will extend to a much larger number and be executed with much greater fury than that which can almost always be stopped by the rule of a single king.”

       Thomas Macaulay, the famous British liberal thinker, stated, “I have long been, and still am, convinced that democratic institutions will, sooner or later, destroy either liberty or civilization, or both.”

       After discussing the evolution of democratic thought under the section titled “Decentralization and Individual Freedom,” the authors pose the question: Is there an alternative to democracy? A society without a dominant state, without majority rule, a cooperative and free society? The answer, they assert, is absolutely yes. Such an alternative is urgently needed if we do not wish to descend into tyranny and stagnation.

       The authors believe that the Western world requires a new model, one that combines dynamism and individual freedom with social harmony. They argue that this is achievable, and the first step is to reduce the role of government. People need to regain the right to control their own lives and the fruits of their labor without interference, regulations, and taxes. This would allow people to create safe, viable, and sustainable communities.

       Under the section “A Market for Governance,” the authors quote Patri Friedman, the grandson of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who said: “Government is a sector with high barriers to entry; in fact, you have to win an election or stage a revolution to try out a new form of government.”

       According to the authors, decentralization would benefit many groups in society. With local autonomy, progressive thinkers could implement their progressive ideas, and conservative thinkers could do the same with their values without forcing others to change their way of life.

       Those who want to live in an environmentally conscious society could do so according to their dreams and at their own expense. A one-size-fits-all approach is neither necessary nor desirable, as the authors conclude. Decentralization, unlike national democracy, is a live-and-let-live system.

       This proposed system has its advantages. Diversity in governance allows people to more easily decide under which system they wish to live. They can move to another town or country if they prefer a different form of government. Such competitiveness ensures that rulers are held accountable, which rarely happens when citizens’ influence is restricted to elections every four years.

       The book then discusses “Decentralization in Switzerland,” highlighting Switzerland’s success thanks to decentralization. Despite being a democratic country, the authors emphasize that this does not mean advocating the Swiss model as the only option but rather as an example of how decentralized governance works, leading to lower taxes and greater individual freedom. This does not necessarily mean that democracy is inherently good as long as it operates in a small setting.

       The authors note that in the past, people could not imagine their lives without a king, and now we view democracy in the same way.

       They compare the type of governance they propose as an alternative to democracy to the internet’s model. With the internet, only a few simple rules apply, and the rest is open for everyone to participate in the way they see fit. The main rule is communication via the TCP/IP protocol, which has proven to work remarkably well.

       In the section titled “The Road to Freedom,” the book explains that if technological progress is an indicator of future development, the potential for decentralization is vast. In reality, technology is the true democratic force, more so than the democratic system itself.

       In summary, the book presents its idea as follows: The large democratic state must give way to smaller political units where citizens can choose how to shape their communities themselves. Decisions should be made locally at the smallest possible administrative level whenever feasible. Even if this means the end of the European Union, it would be for the better.

       The European Union, as the authors explain, represents the opposite of decentralization. It is the ideal model of centralization, a bureaucratic juggernaut that cannot function properly, where individual freedom is threatened even more than by national democracy. The sooner it is dissolved, the better.

A Bright Future:

       The future appears bright according to the book “Beyond Democracy.” Humanity has accumulated immense knowledge and a tremendous capacity for production, more than enough to create prosperity for every person in the world.

       The path to independence and empowerment will continue, but it will not pass through large democracies. Instead, as the book suggests, it will pass through decentralization and the organization of people into small administrative units designed by the people themselves.

       The book concludes by asserting that it is time for people to wake up to the reality that democracy does not lead to freedom or independence. It does not resolve conflicts or unleash productive and creative forces. On the contrary, it creates hostility and restrictions.

       It is time for people to realize that the freedom they wish for themselves must also be granted to others. Freedom cannot endure if others do not enjoy the same freedom, and in the end, they themselves will become victims of the coercion they democratically impose on others.

       The book received praise and appreciation from Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the author of *”Democracy: The God That Failed.”* The book is notable for its clear and calm explanation of each idea, supported by simple examples and data.

       While the book successfully exposes the flaws and myths of democracy and proves its failure as a system of governance, the alternative it proposes—decentralization—was not convincingly presented as the optimal solution.

The original article:

مراجعة كتاب.. ما وراء الديمقراطية

Translated by:

Arwa Jehad