Is Democracy Unnatural?

Today is an exceptional time for democracy—the first time in history that most nations in the world may be called democratic (assuming we are generous with our definition).

Democracy has, throughout history, been an occasional thing. Governments have in all times and places tended to autocracy. This isn't surprising. Males of many species, including our own, tend to be competitive, principally about females. To the dominant male goes the feminine spoils. We should expect therefor to be ruled by dominant males. It is, you might say, the natural order of things.

This masculine urge derives from the purpose of life—the replication of genes. And the male who is most successful at acquiring women ensures the most replication. Genghis Khan, for instance, a supreme competitor, is thought to have had 3,000 women in his harem, produced hundreds of children, and has as many as 16 million male descendants living today.

Competition between men isn't simply a matter of brute force as it is with many other animals, but rather a matter of accumulating resources. The more resources a man has, the more status he has and the more attractive he is to women.

Women pursue a different strategy, according to the old saying: men compete, women choose. Women seek not only a man with good genes but a man who can ensure the survival of her progeny. And that means a man with resources, or at least the ability to accumulate lots of resources, and the more the resources the more appealing the man. If women are sex objects to men, men are success objects to women.

We see this illustrated by the groupies that surround rock stars, actors or athletes. Men do not group around successful women. And we are all familiar with the CEO who couldn't get a date when he was in the mail room, but when he becomes head of the company, he divorces his faithful wife of many years and marries the beautiful young secretary. And even today in a culture of monogamy, successful men often have mistresses. Not that men necessarily recognize what drives their ambition. Ask that CEO what motivates him and he may say he just likes a challenge, or he enjoys the perks, or he wanted to do well by his family ... and he is sincere. But the real reason is more fundamental, lurking in his genes.

Other, less capable men gather around the successful man to obtain a share of the spoils. And often both the submission and the loyalty they offer their leader is profound, at times bordering on the zealous. Often even men, and women, at a distance from such a leader, can be swept up in the adoration. Power is in itself a resource, one that can be erotic and mesmerizing.

This explains in large part why democracy has been so rare. How can it compete with men driven by the most powerful of our basic instincts? How can it compete with the euphoria offered by a demagogue? Or by the instant gratification he offers, compared to the responsibility demanded by democracy? The calm, rational and equal discourse of democracy is dull by comparison.

So is democracy unnatural compared to the instinctive appeal of autocracy? Not unnatural, but without the same "natural" appeal certainly. Thus history is mainly about excessively aggressive men—alpha males—seeking to maximize their resources. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, “If there were a people of gods, it would govern itself democratically. So perfect a form of government is not for men.”

And yet it is for men, and women, and today more than ever. Why it has flowered at this time in history is a fascinating question. Certainly it has many advantages, as I have laid out on this blog's Why Democracy? page. Perhaps its increasing success is simply a result of improved communication. Newspapers began circulating in the 17th century. Cheap mail, the telegraph and the telephone appeared in the 19th century followed by the explosion of electronic technologies in the 20th. Easier travel has added to the flow of ideas by shuffling people around the world. And the growth of mass communication has been complemented by the growth of mass education. While only 12 per cent of the world's people were literate in 1820, today only 17 per cent remain illiterate. It has become increasingly difficult to keep people in the dark about their oppression when they can glimpse others enjoying the perks of democracy, both material and political, including the ability to rid themselves of oppressive rulers.

Nonetheless, threats are forever present, even in long-established democracies, as we currently see with the rise of the populist Donald Trump. The seductive nature of power is natural and as permanent as the human genome. The words of American abolitionist Wendell Phillips remain in order: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few."