Auto-translated
In my private messages, a discussion about democracy and related topics has unfolded, sparked by posts in this thread. I'll share a compilation of my arguments; perhaps it will be useful to someone...
Discussions about management models in public discourse often take place from an ideological perspective – what is good, what is bad, what is progressive, what is regressive, etc. However, in reality, this is a purely practical problem, and the main criterion here is the effectiveness of solving a specific task under specific conditions.
Depending on the task and the conditions, different models have different levels of effectiveness. There is no universal model; each case must be analyzed individually. Historical experience shows that successful states constantly alternate between different management models, even without changing their outward appearance.
Conditions for the effective functioning of democracy in a group:
1) Members of the group have a common goal and are aware of it.
2) Members of the group consistently and thoughtfully consider how best to achieve this goal.
3) Members of the group are willing to personally contribute to achieving this goal.
4) The group has enough time to develop a solution.
5) The degree of necessary secrecy does not hinder broad discussions.
6) The group consistently and steadily moves towards the goal.
The ideal scenario is a scientific or engineering design group, where all six points can be fully met. For example, in the USSR, various research institutes and design bureaus were considered oases of democracy for this very reason.
A similar case is a sports team. The captains of such teams usually have purely representative functions. And even coaches try to position themselves as "one of you" as much as possible.
If any of these criteria are not met, the effectiveness of democratic mechanisms is significantly reduced. And if several criteria are lacking, democracy can even be detrimental.
Examples by point:
1) There is a division within the group regarding goals.
For example, candidate X campaigns on a platform of "expropriating blondes and giving their money to brunettes," while candidate Y campaigns on a platform of "expropriating brunettes and giving their money to blondes." Any discussion here is pointless – whatever the candidates say in defense of their position or to refute the opponent's position, 100% of brunettes will vote for candidate X, and 100% of blondes will vote for candidate Y. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the losing side will not recognize it, and a civil war will begin.
The most effective solution here would be a radical, anti-democratic one: a brunette Z with a tank division seizes the capital, arrests X and Y, and declares the position "we will not expropriate anyone." That is, he does not express anyone's political interests and does not engage in any dialogue, but in this case, it is the only solution that can prevent a civil war.
By the way, there was a similar precedent in the history of ХВ – the selection of the version for CIS-2010.
2) Part of the group is either not interested in the group's goal or is unable to thoughtfully consider the path to it.
With the increasing size of the group, this inevitably occurs, and for states, it is true in 100% of cases.
Therefore, in the case of a state, democratic processes only occur at the very top, among approximately the top 100, and the approved agenda is passed down. Either in the form of one specific decision (in authoritarian states) or in the form of a spectrum of more or less similar decisions for voting (in democratic states).
If fundamentally different decisions are passed down, this is not a positive signal (as many believe), but a very alarming one, indicating a split in the elite; see point 1.
3) There are freeloaders in the group – those who do not participate in the work to achieve the goal but want to have the right to vote.
In a politically healthy group, they do not pose a problem, but, for example, in the event of a split (point 1), different groups may try to attract freeloaders to their side as extras. And they usually succeed, as this is the freeloaders' moment to shine. Therefore, sometimes freeloaders even provoke splits themselves in order to increase their political weight.
That is, the goal of freeloaders is often to participate in the political process for the sake of participation, and not for the sake of the goal that the group is pursuing. Alternatively, freeloaders may have the goal of preserving their own status as freeloaders; in this case, they are the most aggressive.
4) This is obvious – public discussions and voting require a considerable amount of time to develop a quality solution, and sometimes there is simply no time.
For example, in the case of crises/disasters, control is handed over to crisis managers, and democratic procedures are resumed after the problem is overcome.
The same principle applies during wartime – the speed of reaction to the changing military situation is often more important than the accuracy of the reaction.
5) An obscure point that many overlook in their analyses. If there is a strong competitor who has the opportunity to at least listen to discussions within the group (let alone influence them), attempting a broad discussion/vote will only lead to the competitor being able to counter the decision before it is implemented.
6) Democracy is very sensitive to positive reinforcement; it is much easier for people to share profits than to share losses.
For example, if the economy is growing, democratic discussions about choosing a path are possible. But if it is shrinking, democratic mechanisms begin to be used for political infighting. The only way to get out of this situation is through administrative measures – in the event of mass starvation, a rationing system is introduced; in the event of an economic crisis, a forced nationalization of part of the economy is carried out, etc.
These are roughly my thoughts. I wrote this quickly in 5 minutes, so I may have formulated something awkwardly; this is a memory dump.
And the conclusion is this: before demanding more democracy (and less corruption), one must carefully study the situation and understand whether democracy is appropriate here in principle. And if not entirely, then one must either adjust the conditions or choose a different management model.
Marcus Aurelius
