D EMOCRACY :

R EPRESENTATIVE ALAIN
TRANSLATED
AND DE

P ARTICIPATORY

BENOIST
G REG JOHNSON

_____________________
BY

Repr es e n t a ti v e de m oc r a c y es s e n ti ally liber al an d bour geoisis the most widesp r e a d political regi m e in the West er n world today. Repre s e n t a t iv e s are aut horize d by election to transf or m the popul ar will into acts of gover n m e n t . Thus we we tend to think of de m o c r a cy and repr es e n t a t i o n as al mos t syno ny m s . The history of ideas, howev e r, doe s not sup port this at all. The gre at theorist s of repre s e n t a t i o n are Hobbes and Locke. For both, the peopl e act u ally deleg a t e their sover ei g nt y by contr ac t to gover n m e n t s . For Hobb e s, this deleg a tio n is tot al. But it leads by no me a n s to a de m oc r a cy : its result, on the contr ary , is to invest a mo n ar c h with absolu t e power (the Leviath a n ). For Locke, the del eg a t ion is condition al: t he peo ple agre e to give up their sover ei gn t y only in exch a n g e for guar a n t e e s concer ni ng funda m e n t al rights and individu al free dom s. Popular sov er ei gnt y is not so much lost betwe e n elec tions as sus pe n d e d , so long as the gover n m e n t resp ec t s th e term s of the contr ac t. Rouss e a u, for his part, holds that dem o cr a c y is contr a dic to ry to any repr e s e n t a t i v e regim e. The peo ple, for him, do not contr ac t with the sover ei g n; their relatio ns conce rn the law ex clusiv ely. The princ e is only the exec u tive of the peo ple, who rem ai n the sole holder of legislative power. He is not even in vest e d with the power belongin g to the gene r al will; inde e d , it is rath e r the peopl e who govern throu g h him. Rouss e a us ar gum e nt is very simple: if the peo pl e are repr es e n t e d, its repr e sen t at ive s hold power, then it is no long er sov er ei g n . The
Alain de Benoist, D mo cr a ti e repr s e n t a t i ve et d m oc r a ti e participa tive, in his Critique s Th oriqu e s (Lausa n n e , Switzerl an d: LAge dHom m e , 2002), 42630. The tran sl a tor wishes to thank Alain de Benoist for permis sion to tra nsl a t e and publish this essa y, and Micha el OMeara for checking the transla tion.

20

The Occiden t al Quart erly , vol. 8, no. 2, Sum m e r 2008

sover ei g n peopl e is a collective being th at can only be repr e sent e d by itself. To reno unc e its sov er ei g n t y would be like re noun ci ng its free do m , i.e., to destr oy itself. As soon as the peo ple elect its repre s e n t a t iv e s , it is a slav e, it is nothin g ( On the Social Contract , III, 15). Freed o m , as an inalien a bl e right, implies its full exer cis e, oth er wi se ther e can n ot be true politi cal citizen s h ip. Popular sover eig n t y, un der thes e conditions, can only be undivid e d and inalien a bl e. Any repr e s e n t a t i on thu s corres p o n d s to an abdica ti on. If it is grant e d that dem ocr a cy is the regim e bas e d on the sover ei g nt y of the peopl e, then one must acce p t Rouss e a u s arg u m e n t . Democr a c y is the form of gov er n m e n t th at corr es p o n d s to the principle of the identity of the ruled and the ruler, i.e., the popul ar will and the law. This identit y deriv es from to the sub stanti al eq u ality of the citizen s, i.e., the fact th at they all are also m e m b e r s of the sam e political unity. To say that th e peo ple are sover eig n, not esse nti ally but by vocation, me a n s that it is from th e peopl e that the public power and th e laws pro ceed . The ruler s can thu s be only age nt s of execu tio n, who must confor m to the ends det er mi n e d by th e gen e r al will. The role of the repr es e n t a t i v e mus t be redu c e d as much as pos si ble, the repr es e n t a t i ve man d a t e losing any legitim ac y as soon as it relat e s to ends or project s not corres po n d i n g to the gen eral will. Exactly the opposi t e hap p e n s today. In liberal de m o c r a ci es , prim a cy is given to repre s e n t a t i o n , an d mor e precis ely to who ever incar n a t e s repre s e n t a ti o n , i.e., the repre s e n t a t iv e. The repr e s e n t a ti v e, far from being mer ely an ag en t expr e s si n g the will of his voters , is the very incarna tio n of this will by the m er e fact of being elect e d. Electio n justifies him acting no long er accor di ng to the will of thos e who elect e d him, but ac cording to his own willin other words, he reg ard s him self as aut ho rized by election to do what he judge s best . This syst e m is the origin of th e criticism s th at have always bee n raised ag ains t parliam e n t a r is m , criticis m s that receiv e new urge n cy through deba t e s on the dem oc r a c y deficit and the crisis of repr es e n t a t i o n. In the repre s e n t a t iv e syst e m , once th e voter has deleg a t e d his political will to his repre s e n t a t iv e by voting, powers cen t e r of gravity inevit ably reside s in the repre s e n t a t iv e s an d th e po litical parti es that subs u m e the m , and no long er in the people.

Benoist, Dem ocr a cy

21

The political class soon form s an oligarch y of profes sio n al s who defe nd their own inter e s t s (the New Class) , in a gene r al climat e of confusion and irrespo n si bility. Today, when peo pl e hold decision- m aki ng power much mor e often by no min a ti on or co- opt ation tha n election , this oligarch y is au gm e n t e d by exp er t s , senior officials, and technician s. The rule of law, whos e virtu es liberal theorist s regul arly cel ebr at e d e s pit e all the am biguiti es att ac h e d to this expr e s sio n see m s unlikely to corr ect the situation. Consisting of an en sem bl e of proc ed ur e s and form al leg al rules, it is act ually indif feren t to the specific aim s of politics. Values are exclud e d from its concer n, thus leaving an ope n field for the confront a ti on of inter es t s . Laws have aut ho rity solely bec a u s e they are leg al, i.e., in conformit y with the constitu tio n and the proced u r e s provide d for their adoptio n. Thus legitim acy is redu c e d to le gality. This positivist- legalist conce p tion of legitim a cy en cou r ag e s resp ec t for institu tions as such, as if they constitut e end s in the m s e lv e s , without the popul ar will being able to am e n d th e m and control th eir oper ati o n. Howev er, in de m oc r a cy, the legitim a cy of power do es not depe n d solely on confor mity to the law, or ev en confor mit y to th e Constitutio n, but abov e all on confor mi ty of gov er n m e n t al practic es to the aims assign e d by the gen er al will. Thus the justice and th e validity of the laws canno t lie entirely in th e ac tivity of the st at e or the legislativ e prod uction s of th e part y in power. Likewise, th e legitim a cy of right can no t be gu ar a n t e e d by the mer e exist e nc e of jurisdictio nal control: it is also nece s sary th at right be legitim a t e , that it an sw er to the citizens ex pect a ti on s , and that it inte gr a t e the aim s direct e d towar d s th e service of the co m m o n good. Finally, one can spe ak of the le gitim a cy of the cons tit u tion only if the aut h ority of the con stitu e nt power is recog nize d as always able to am e n d its form or cont e n t s . Which is to say that the constitutin g power cann o t be compl e t el y deleg a t e d or alien a t e d , that it continu e s to exist an d rem ai n s high er than the constit u tion and cons tit u tio n al laws, ev en when thos e proce e d from it. Obviously we can nev er co mpl et el y esc ap e repr es e n t a t i on , since the idea of a con trolling m ajority encou nt e r s insur m o u n t able difficulties in mod er n soci eti e s. Repr es e n t a ti o n , which is never more than a m ak es hift, does not, howev er , exh a u s t the dem o cr a ti c principle. It can to a larg e ext e n t be correct e d by th e imple m e n t a t i on of particip at or y dem o cr a c y , also called or -

22

The Occiden t al Quart erly , vol. 8, no. 2, Sum m e r 2008

ganic dem o cr a c y or em bo di e d dem o cr ac y. Such a reorient a tion app e a r s eve n more nec e s s a r y tod ay bec a us e of the gen eral evolution of soci et y. The crisis of instit utio n al struct u r e s and disap p e a r a n c e of the foundin g grand narra tive s, the growing disaffecti on of the electo r a t e for conve nti on al political parti es, the revival of com m u ni t y life, the em er g e n c e of new social or political move m en t s (ecolo gic al, regionalist, iden tit ari an ) whos e co m m o n char ac t e ri stic is less to defend neg oti a bl e intere st s than exis tenti al valu es all thes e allow us to envision the possibility of recre a tin g a funda m e n t ally active citizens hi p. The crisis of the nation stat e d u e in particular to th e glob al ization of econ o m ic life and the deploy m e n t of phe n o m e n a of plan et a r y influen c ec a u s e s for its part two mod e s of tran scen d e n c e : at the top, throug h variou s att e m p t s to recr e a t e at the supr a n a t io n al level a coher e n c e and efficiency in decisionm aking that would allow, at least in part, regul at e the proce s s of glob alization; a t the bott o m , thro u gh the ren ew e d impor tance of sm all political unities and local aut on o m i e s . These two tend e n ci e swhich not only do not oppos e but act u ally com plem e n t one anot h e r, imply one ano t h erhold the rem e d y for tod ays de m oc r a cy deficit. But the political scen e is still changi n g. On the right is a rup ture of the old heg e m o ni c block bec a us e capit alis m has lost its allian ce with the middl e class e s du e to the com pl etio n of its belat e d mod er niza tion, the evolutio n of prod uction cost s, an d the tran s n a t io n aliza tion of capit al acc el er at e d by the crisis. At the sam e tim e the middl e class e s feel disorien t a t e d and often thre at e n e d , th e lower class e s are increa si n gly disapp oint e d by the gover n m e n t a l policies of a left which, after havin g dis avo we d practically all its principles, tend s to be identified more an d more with the inter e s t s of the upp e r mid dle class. In oth er word s, the middle class e s no long er feel repr es e n t e d by the parti es of the right, while the popular ele m e n t feels ab a n done d and betr ay e d by the partie s of the left. In addition to that , finally, the efface m e n t of old point s of refer en c e , t he collaps e of mod el s, the disint eg r a ti on of the grea t ideologies of moder nity, the abs olut e power of a syst e m of com m e r c e that (may) deliver the me a n s of living but not the m e a ni n g of life, raise agai n the crucial ques ti on of the me a n ing of th e hum a n pres e nc e in the world, of the m ea ni n g of in dividu al and collective exist e nc e , and all this while the eco n o -

Benoist, Dem ocr a cy

23

my produ c e s mor e and more goo ds and services with less an d less labor, which multiplies exclusion s in a cont e x t alrea d y heavily mark e d by une m pl oy m e n t , prec ario u s em ploy m e n t , fear of the futur e, insec urity, reactiv e ag gr e s si v e n e s s , and ten sion s of all kinds. All the s e factors call for an in-dept h recas ti n g of dem ocr a tic practic es that can take place only in the directio n of tru e par ticipat ory dem ocr a cy. Indee d, in an incre asi n gly illegible so ciety, particip a t o ry dem o cr a c ys main adv en t a g e s are elimi nating or corr ectin g the distortion s cau s e d by repr es e n t a t i o n , en suri ng gre at e r confor mi ty of the law to the gen e r al will, and foun din g a legitim a cy withou t which institution al leg ality is m er e show. It is not possibl e to recr e a t e such an activ e citizen s hi p on th e level of the grea t collective institutio n s (parti es, trad e union s, church e s , ar mi es, sch ool s, etc.) that tod ay are all more or less in crisis and thu s can no longer play their traditio nal role of social integ r a tio n and medi a tio n . Nor can the control of power be the sole prero g a tiv e of political partie s whos e activi ty is too often reduc e d to client elis m . Today, particip at or y dem o cr a cy can be only a basis dem o cr a cy. The purpo s e of this basis dem o cr a cy is not to gen er alize dis cussio n on all levels, but rath er to det er mi n e, with the assis tance of the grea t e s t num b e r , new decision proce d u r e s in con formity with its own require m e n t s and the aspirations of th e citizen s. Nor can it be reduc e d to a sim ple opp o sitio n of civil society to the public sph er e, which would am ou nt to further ext en di n g the influenc e of the privat e and giving up political initiativ e for obsol et e form s of power. On the contra ry, it act s to make it possibl e for individu als to prove the m s el v e s as citi zens, and not as me m b e r s of th e privat e spher e, while su p porting as muc h as possible the blosso mi n g and multiplication of new public spac e s of initiative an d respon sibility. The refer e n d u m proce d ur e (which results from gov er n m e n t decision or popul ar initiative, which refer e n d u m is option al or obligat ory) is only one form of direct dem ocr a cy am o n g oth er s one whos e import a nc e is per h a p s over es t i m a t e d . Let us stre ss once again that the real political principle of de m o cr a cy is not that the m ajority decid e s, but th at the peopl e are sov er ei gn . Voting per se is only a sim ple tech ni cal m e an s to cons ul t and reveal opinion. This m ea n s that dem o cr a c y is a political principle that should not be confus e d with th e me a n s

24

The Occiden t al Quart erly , vol. 8, no. 2, Sum m e r 2008

it use s, no more than it can be red uc e d to a purely arith m e t i c or qu an tit ati ve idea. Citizens hi p is not exh a u s t e d by votin g, but is pres e n t in all m et ho d s allowing one to give or refus e cons e n t , to expr es s refus al or appr ov al. It is thu s advisa bl e to explore syst e m a t i c ally all possible forms of activ e particip atio n in public life, which are also form s of respo nsi bility and person al auton o m y, since pu blic life con ditio n s the daily exist en c e of us all. But participat o ry de m o c r a c y is mor e tha n just political. It also has social import. By supp orti n g relatio n s of reciprocity, by allowing the re- crea tion of social bond s, it can help reco n stitut e todays weake n e d organic solidarity, to recr e a t e a so cial fabric fray ed by the rise of individu alis m an d the syst e m of com p et i tion and self- inter e s t . Insofar as it prod uc e s ele m e n tary sociality, participat ory dem ocr ac y goe s hand in han d with the rebirt h of vibrant com m u ni ti es, the re- creation of solidarity in neig hbo r ho o d s , districts, workplac e s , etc. This participa t ory conc ep ti o n of dem o cr a c y is entir ely op pos ed to the liberal legitim a tion of political apat h y, which indi rectly enco ur a g e s abs t e n ti on an d lead s to the reig n of man ager s, ex pert s, and technician s. Dem o cr a cy , in the final an aly sis, rest s less on the form of gover n m e n t per se tha n on the participa ti on of the peo ple in public life, such that the maxi mu m of de m o c r a c y m er g e s with the m axi m u m of particip a tion. To participat e is to take part, to prove ones elf as part of a unit or a whole, an d to ass u m e the activ e role that results from this m e m b e r s hi p. Participa tion , said Ren Capitan t, is th e in dividu al act of the citizen acting as m e m b e r of the popular col lectivity. One sees by this how mu ch the conce p t s of m e m bers hi p, citizens hi p, and dem o cr a cy are interd e p e n d a n t . Par ticipatio n sanction s citizens hi p, which res ults from m e m b e r ship. Mem b er s hi p justifies citizen ship , which allows particip a tion. Everyo n e knows the mot t o of the Fren ch republic: Libert , galit, frat ernit Liberty, equ ality, frat er nit y. If th e liberal dem ocr a ci es hav e exploit ed the word liberty, if th e form er peo pl es de m o cr a ci e s seized upon equ ality, the n organic or participa t ory dem o cr a c y, bas e d on the activ e citizen s hi p and the sov er ei gn t y of the peopl e, could well be the best way to resp o n d to the imper a tive of frat er nit y.

Benoist, Dem ocr a cy

25

Alain de Ben oist is the editor of Nou v e l l e Ecol e and Kri si s and the aut hor of so m e fifty books and more than 3,000 articles, essay s , and review s. His recent books in clude Jsu s et s e s frr e s , e t au t r e s cri t s sur le chri s t i a n n i s m e , le pa g a n i s m e e t la reli gi o n [Jes u s a n d His Bro t h e r s , an d Ot h e r Wri t i n g s on Chri s t i a n i t y , Pa g a n i s m , an d Reli g i o n ] (Paris: Associatio n des Amis dAlain de Ben oist, 2006), Carl Sch m i t t ac t u e l [Carl Sch m i t t Tod a y ] (Paris: Krisis, 200 7), and De m a i n , la d c r o i s s a n c e ! Pen s e r l'c o l o g i e jus q u ' a u b o u t [To m o r r o w , Les s ! Thin ki n g Ecolo g y to t h e En d] (Paris: Edite, 2007).