Chapter 1: In Search of "True Democracy"
1.3. The undemocratic, the "state"
A comparison is often made between democratic countries and non-democratic countries. In such cases, the existence of a parliamentary system is usually considered the most important and almost only indicator, and if a parliamentary system exists, it is considered a passing grade for a democratic country.
However, in recent years, as parliamentary systems have seemingly become more widespread globally, the hurdles to passing have become somewhat higher, meaning that parliamentary systems not only exist, but also function effectively and enable periodic changes in government. If a parliamentary system remains a mere formality, it may be described as a flawed democracy.
In any case, it remains a universally accepted idea that an ideal "democratic state" is possible. However, I would like to put aside this conventional wisdom for a moment and ask whether there really is such a thing as a "democratic state." In other words, the question is whether it is possible for a state to be run democratically.
A state is just like a house that protects its citizens, and it is also true that a properly functioning state protects its citizens through various policies. However, in exchange for protection, the state demands obedience from its citizens, imposes obligations, and limits rights. Even in states that advocate national sovereignty, where the people are the protagonists, the reality is that the people are still the ruled.
The idea of parliamentary democracy is to reflect the idea of national sovereignty in the state through a parliamentary system in which the people elect their own representatives, but in reality, this goal is hampered by the informal political power of political parties. Candidates in elections are limited to party members or party friends who are endorsed by political parties, and the general public, the voters, are merely passive participants who vote for the choices presented to them by the parties.
Is it possible, then, to conceive of a democratic state that does not depend on a parliamentary system? There have been many proposals and a few practical examples. The Soviet system (popular congressional body), which the Soviet Union also named after itself, attempted to be an example of such a non-parliamentary democracy, but it failed as a democracy because it attempted to combine the Soviet system with a one-party system to eliminate partisan conflict.
If this is the case, one could argue that eliminating political parties is the key to a "democratic state. However, unless the state, the system of power and control that towers above the people, is eliminated, the creation of a representative body without political parties will simply result in a group of bureaucrats, military officers, and other public servants who manage the state retaining actual authority over state affairs.
In fact, even in "democracies" where the parliamentary system is considered to be functioning effectively, the real power of the group of civil servants responsible for the day-to-day management and administration of the state has been strengthened but not weakened, and the role of parliament has become symbolic to varying degrees, which is an inevitable phenomenon.
The state is essentially a body of power that rules over the people, and it is an institution that is not intended to be run by the people as the protagonist. When we break off our attachment to the state, the political system to which we have long been accustomed, and take the starting point that the state is not inherently democratic, then true democracy will be discovered.
👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.
