Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by Slavoj Zizek
"Democracy" is not merely the "power of, by, and for the people," it is not
enough just to claim that, in democracy, the will and the interests (the two in
no way automatically coincide) of the large majority determine the state
decisions. Democracy - in the way this term is used today - concerns, above
all, formal legalism: its minimal definition is the unconditional adherence to
a certain set of formal rules which guarantee that antagonisms are fully
absorbed into the agonistic game. "Democracy" means that, whatever
electoral manipulation took place, every political agent will unconditionally
respect the results. In this sense, the US presidential elections of 2000 were
effectively "democratic": in spite of obvious electoral manipulations, and of
the patent meaninglessness of the fact that a couple hundred of Florida
voices will decide who will be the president, the Democratic candidate
accepted his defeat. In the weeks of uncertainty after the elections, Bill
Clinton made an appropriate acerbic comment: "The American people have
spoken; we just don't know what they said." This comment should be taken
more seriously than it was meant: even now, we don't know it - and, maybe,
because there was no substantial "message" behind the result at all. This is
the sense in which one should render problematic democracy: why should
the Left always and unconditionally respect the formal democratic "rules of
the game"? Why should it not, in some circumstances, at least, put in
question the legitimacy of the outcome of a formal democratic procedure?
Interestingly enough, there is at least one case in which formal democrats
themselves (or, at least, a substantial part of them) would tolerate the
suspension of democracy: what if the formally free elections are won by an
anti-democratic party whose platform promises the abolition of formal
democracy? (This did happen, among other places, in Algeria a couple of
years ago, and the situation is similar in today's Pakistan.) In such a case,
many a democrat would concede that the people was not yet "mature"
enough to be allowed democracy, and that some kind of enlightened
despotism whose aim will be to educate the majority into proper democrats
is preferable.
This strategic suspension of democracy is reaching new heights today. The
US were putting tremendous pressure on Turkey where, according to
opinion polls, 94% of the people are opposed to allowing the US troops'
presence for the war against Iraq - where is democracy here? Every old
Leftist remembers Marx's reply, in The Communist Manifesto, to the critics
who reproached the Communists that they aim at undermining family,
property, etc.: it is the capitalist order itself whose economic dynamics is
destroying the traditional family order (incidentally, a fact more true today
than in Marx's time), as well as expropriating the large majority of the
population. In the same vein, is it not that precisely those who pose today as
global defenders of democracy are effectively undermining it? In a perverse
rhetorical twist, when the pro-war leaders are confronted with the brutal fact
that their politics is out-of-tune with the majority of their population, they
take recourse to the commonplace wisdom that "a true leader leads, he does
not follow" - and this from leaders otherwise obsessed with opinion polls...
When politicians start to directly justify their decisions in ethical terms, one
can be sure that ethics is mobilized to cover up some dark, threatening
prospects. It is the very inflation of abstract ethical rhetoric in George W.
Bush's recent public statements (of the "Does the world have the courage to
act against Evil or not?" type) which manifests the utter ETHICAL misery of
the U.S. position - the function of ethical reference is here purely
mystifying, merely serving to mask the true political stakes (which are not
difficult to discern). In order to trace these stakes, recall how the geopolitic
hardliners like to compare today's situation of the US to that of a patient on
dialysis: the US way of life in all its aspects, including the ideological
ones, crucially depends on the availability of a certain minimal amount of
the oil supply, only one third of which can be provided by the US
themselves. The US are thus like a patient on dialysis whose survival
depends on the influx of oil mostly controlled by the Muslim population
which is antagonistic to the US values and might - in short, a patient whose
dialysis machine is controlled by a crazy doctor who hates the patient... The
only way to avoid the permanent threat is to directly take control of the key
oil suppliers in the Middle East. The gradual limitation of democracy is
clearly perceptible in the attempts to "rethink" the present situation - one is,
of course, for democracy and human rights, but one should "rethink" them,
and a series of recent interventions in the public debate give a clear sense of
the direction of this "rethinking." In The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria,
Bush's favored columnist, locates the threat to freedom in "overdoing
democracy," i.e., in the rise of "illiberal democracy at home and abroad" (the
books subtitle). He draws the lesson that democracy can only "catch on" in
economically developed countries: if the developing countries are