Lionel Page’s latest essay, “Does the arc of history bend towards democracy?”, is a brilliant piece of naturalistic political analysis.
He dismantles the teleological myth (inherited from Enlightenment optimism and Fukuyama’s “End of History”) that democracy is the inevitable destiny of human societies. Instead, he shows that democratic institutions emerged not from moral enlightenment but from coalitional dynamics - shifts in bargaining power that urbanization, communication & coordination made possible. As he rightly notes, ideas follow power. His essay resonates deeply with the argument I make in the book Os Demónios da Nossa Natureza: democracy is not our natural political state - it’s an institutional exception built on fragile evolutionary ground.A superb and lucid analysis that deserves wide readership.
Learn well The Iron Law Of Oligarchy. The United States and its vassals and catamites are in no wise "democracies" nor are they "democratic republics".
A problem with such a take is that no country is a democracy. For a non-idealist take that does not negate differences between countries like the USA and China, I highly recommend The Dictator’s Handbook. This excellent YouTube video summarises their thesis: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=ufXE5TBnxtzVI2fc
“For instance, by providing personal fact-checkers to every citizen, AI might limit the asymmetry of information between leaders and citizens which allows political leaders to get away with convenient half-truths and deceptive narratives.”
Modern history definitively shows that so-called “fact-checkers” are simply tools to promote particular kinds of political biases.
They are about interpretations and political opinions, not about ”facts”.
Most of them, like PolitiFact, e.g., are run by left-biased organizations and deliver Orwellian answers re: “facts”.
And this is separate from the question of who maintains the fact checker and gets it into the hands of the citizen who might theoretically be protected from the dictators/oligarchs.
Economic freedom is what delivers wealth, which also delivers power.
People prefer more wealth to less wealth, and less powerful (now because less wealthy) societies eventually lose out to more powerful ones.
This is quite consistent with your “larger coalitions” thesis - which I do agree with - but imo more fundamental.
China has only succeeded in becoming the major power they are now because they enacted very substantial economic liberalization.
Russia (and North Korea) hang around because of legacy wealth and natural energy resources of the former, and both because of nuclear weapons, but no one believes they will become dominant.
I wish I could say with confidence that “The arc of history bends toward freedom”, period, but China is a prime counter example.
Economic freedom *tends* to go along with and “encourage” freedom on other axes - including freedom to choose our government - but this is not necessarily inevitable, given the powerful counter-example.
You can argue that ASI (Artifical Super Intelligence) will change it all, and truly, after a singularity is achieved, all bets are off. Anything short of this is and AI is still about “simple” economics; just more productivity-improving technology.
But other than that possibility of ASI, it seems pretty clear that the arc of history bends toward the superior economic system - capitalism - which requires economic freedom to properly align human incentives and specialization.
Then if we are lucky other freedoms will more likely than not go along with this, but it does not seem to be guaranteed.
Lionel, we are approaching this question from a similar angle — if you would like to read a copy of my recent (short) book (Liberalism That Wins) let me know, and I will drop you a PDF — it might spark discussion/be interesting to compare notes.
An important question is, what *is* democracy? The word means power (-cracy) by the people (demos). Using that minimal definition, the form that we've had in the West for ~150 years (roughly: representative democracy) is just that: one particular form.
Are other forms possible? I liked Helene Landemore's book 'Open Democracy'. The vision is utopian but very imaginative with respect to the questions you're grappling with here.
Also possibly relevant, my paper 'Human nature & the open society'. Using naturalism with respect to collective decision making, I argue that we should be using deliberative forms of democracy far more than we currently do.
I have not read your text in detail, but I see that it discusses sortition, like Landemore's book. I like the idea of sortition (though the fiasco of the citizens' assembly organised by Macron pointed to issues of incentives, which makes me more sceptical now). I think shaping the argumentative space is also important. Coming from a game-theoretic perspective, I think it is key to shape institutions that “work”, that is, they prevent small-coalition regimes even when everybody tries their best to achieve only their personal goals.
Lionel Page’s latest essay, “Does the arc of history bend towards democracy?”, is a brilliant piece of naturalistic political analysis.
He dismantles the teleological myth (inherited from Enlightenment optimism and Fukuyama’s “End of History”) that democracy is the inevitable destiny of human societies. Instead, he shows that democratic institutions emerged not from moral enlightenment but from coalitional dynamics - shifts in bargaining power that urbanization, communication & coordination made possible. As he rightly notes, ideas follow power. His essay resonates deeply with the argument I make in the book Os Demónios da Nossa Natureza: democracy is not our natural political state - it’s an institutional exception built on fragile evolutionary ground.A superb and lucid analysis that deserves wide readership.
God I hope not. Democracy is mob rule.
Dictatorship is also mob rule and you typically are not part of the ruling mob.
That's why arms are so important in preserving a liberal society (in the literal translation of the word).
And why a constitutional republic with strong protections for minority rights is so important as well.
As I note elsewhere in these comments, “bends toward democracy” is the wrong question.
“Bends towards freedom/liberty” and “bends toward *economic* freedom/liberty” are imo the more appopriate questions.
Those are *not* the only two choices.
as the Founders of our American Republic showed well.
Learn well The Iron Law Of Oligarchy. The United States and its vassals and catamites are in no wise "democracies" nor are they "democratic republics".
A problem with such a take is that no country is a democracy. For a non-idealist take that does not negate differences between countries like the USA and China, I highly recommend The Dictator’s Handbook. This excellent YouTube video summarises their thesis: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=ufXE5TBnxtzVI2fc
I used the words "democratic republic" advisedly. The United States is an oligarchy, albeit with some democratic trappings.
“For instance, by providing personal fact-checkers to every citizen, AI might limit the asymmetry of information between leaders and citizens which allows political leaders to get away with convenient half-truths and deceptive narratives.”
Modern history definitively shows that so-called “fact-checkers” are simply tools to promote particular kinds of political biases.
They are about interpretations and political opinions, not about ”facts”.
Most of them, like PolitiFact, e.g., are run by left-biased organizations and deliver Orwellian answers re: “facts”.
And this is separate from the question of who maintains the fact checker and gets it into the hands of the citizen who might theoretically be protected from the dictators/oligarchs.
Can I propose a simpler rule that explains more?
The arc of history bends toward economic freedom.
Economic freedom is what delivers wealth, which also delivers power.
People prefer more wealth to less wealth, and less powerful (now because less wealthy) societies eventually lose out to more powerful ones.
This is quite consistent with your “larger coalitions” thesis - which I do agree with - but imo more fundamental.
China has only succeeded in becoming the major power they are now because they enacted very substantial economic liberalization.
Russia (and North Korea) hang around because of legacy wealth and natural energy resources of the former, and both because of nuclear weapons, but no one believes they will become dominant.
I wish I could say with confidence that “The arc of history bends toward freedom”, period, but China is a prime counter example.
Economic freedom *tends* to go along with and “encourage” freedom on other axes - including freedom to choose our government - but this is not necessarily inevitable, given the powerful counter-example.
You can argue that ASI (Artifical Super Intelligence) will change it all, and truly, after a singularity is achieved, all bets are off. Anything short of this is and AI is still about “simple” economics; just more productivity-improving technology.
But other than that possibility of ASI, it seems pretty clear that the arc of history bends toward the superior economic system - capitalism - which requires economic freedom to properly align human incentives and specialization.
Then if we are lucky other freedoms will more likely than not go along with this, but it does not seem to be guaranteed.
No. The rise of democracy correlates to the rise of mass warfare as entire educated populations are needed to win wars.
Even women, who don't serve in the military, are required for industrial production.
Rulers need large coalitions to fight their wars. Everything else derives from there.
Lionel, we are approaching this question from a similar angle — if you would like to read a copy of my recent (short) book (Liberalism That Wins) let me know, and I will drop you a PDF — it might spark discussion/be interesting to compare notes.
Hi Lionel!
An important question is, what *is* democracy? The word means power (-cracy) by the people (demos). Using that minimal definition, the form that we've had in the West for ~150 years (roughly: representative democracy) is just that: one particular form.
Are other forms possible? I liked Helene Landemore's book 'Open Democracy'. The vision is utopian but very imaginative with respect to the questions you're grappling with here.
Also possibly relevant, my paper 'Human nature & the open society'. Using naturalism with respect to collective decision making, I argue that we should be using deliberative forms of democracy far more than we currently do.
Hi Thom!
I have not read your text in detail, but I see that it discusses sortition, like Landemore's book. I like the idea of sortition (though the fiasco of the citizens' assembly organised by Macron pointed to issues of incentives, which makes me more sceptical now). I think shaping the argumentative space is also important. Coming from a game-theoretic perspective, I think it is key to shape institutions that “work”, that is, they prevent small-coalition regimes even when everybody tries their best to achieve only their personal goals.