Europe's Eclipse of Intelligence - Democracy

Europe is experiencing what can be called the "twin problem" of democracy, i.e. that democracy is not freedom and that democracy destroys itself.

In this fourth article on Europe’s “Eclipse of Intelligence”, after a review of the main economic issues facing Europe and what so obviously should be done about it (but certainly won’t), it’s time to discuss democracy. It is a sensitive topic, because Europeans are so proud of their so-called “democratic” political systems, to the point that it has become almost like new secular religion for many who otherwise, as Solzhenitsyn’s said, suffer from the “illness of emptiness”.

Most Europeans, especially the middle and upper middle class, are politically quite gullible, despite their reputation as “sophisticated”; they tend to accept what their mainstream media says (this became clear during the Covid crisis, for anyone who doubted). They do have not so much political awareness as one would think; but they do have a deep-rooted conviction, not really thought-through, that they live in the most democratic part of the world. Nay, they generally believe that the “West” is the only real democratic part of the world.

But there are two fundamental problems with democracy that some Europeans are only now slowly waking up to, thanks to the unprecedented new information sphere provided by the internet. The first problem is that democracy is not freedom, and the second one is that democracy destroys itself. To discuss these two subjects, it is inevitable to delve a little into political science.

Democracy is Not Freedom

The first problem for Europeans is that they tend to focus more on democracy than on freedom. It is a grave mistake of European publics to believe that democracy is a necessary and sufficient condition for freedom, in particular economic freedom. The two are actually quite decorrelated. On the one hand, China has showed that a certain level of economic freedom is possible without democracy (or, at least, without “European” parliamentary democracy). On the other hand, existing representative democracy in Europe has not prevented a deterioration of economic and political freedoms on the Old Continent.

Europeans have been so indoctrinated by the mantra of “democracy”, since childhood and through their public education systems, that they do not see that all societies are ruled by a minority, at least for all important matters. This minority is the Western political and financial oligarchy and it only accepts a kind of “managed” democracy; one that strays not far from political programs of the main centrist parties.

To this point, a recent article from the University of Helsinki shockingly lamented what up to now only some dissidents and libertarians have been saying about the EU commission:

“Judging by its actions, the commission’s commitment to democracy seems to stop at the vocabulary, and definitely does not extend to upholding basic principles of participatory democracy in its own institutional practices.”

“In this vision, democracy is reduced to the right to visit a ballot box every five years — an act that has limited impact on Europe’s future direction.”

This is of course what Jean-Jacques Rousseau already condescendingly observed in The Social Contract (1762), about the role of elections. He said that when not voting, which is most of the time, « the individual is a slave, he is nothing ». Sociologist Robert Michels noted in 1911 the inherent conflict between representative democracy and the “iron law of oligarchy” which inevitably tends to create a ruling minority even in the most democratically minded organizations. This idea is also echoed by the libertarian skepticism towards democracy expressed frequently at the Mises Institute.

In the respect, the rest of the article mentioned above is a little naïve, since it expects that a state, or a supranational state (EU) at that, would have an instinct of democracy and transparency. For instance, it gullibly recommends that "the commission should do its utmost to promote the emergence of an [informed EU public sphere]." This harks back to theories of neo-Marxist Jürgen Habermas linking the idea of the public sphere with democracy. One problem with this theory is that, as German legal scholar Carl Schmitt controversially explained, considering the inevitably oligarchic nature of all ostensibly “democratic” systems, a really open public sphere is a threat to the ruling elite. This is why this public sphere can not be allowed to truly exist. It is not surprising, therefore, that access to information and free speech is now being challenged in Europe.

Even the Economist recognizes it

Indeed, states have obviously no interest in going against their own interest. The authoritarian and coercive behavior seen in the EU Commission and in Britain, France and Germany is therefore entirely understandable and fully predictable (and completely unacceptable!) for anyone familiar with the above ideas. It is only a surprise that it is a surprise for so many people in Europe. European majorities should abandon the idea of the benevolent state.

Thus, when information becomes available in society as is the case now to an unprecedented degree, the institutions of the state will not defend the democratic and open society principally, since this means jeopardizing narrative control. In other words, restrictions on free speech and the possible tweaking of the election process will always be preferred, when things start to get out of hand politically or economically. This is clearly seen in Europe today. As journalist Thomas Fazi writes, “Western democracy is under threat… from its own elites”.

Democracy Destroys Itself

The second problem for Europeans with regard to democracy, is that too few people in the West realize that democracy destroys itself. It introduces into society a tragedy of the commons. In the same way oceans can be overfished to the detriment of those same people responsable for the overfishing, in democracies the majority often does not want public spending to be cut despite obvious signs of bureaucratic bloating and inefficiency. The majority tends to vote for further expansions of the welfare state, leading to increased taxation and redistribution, which, in turn, stifles the economy and hurts these same voters.

The nefarious consequences for the voting individual of such policies over the long term are “not seen”, to paraphrase Bastiat, or not understood. And the individual’s own tax burden is felt to be lower than what the value received from the bloated state (subsidies, pension, etc.).

This leads to a situation in which all political parties make promises that will expand social services, or at least not reduce them, which then inevitably increase the size and indebtedness of the state, thereby creating a crisis. Mass immigration obviously exacerbates this process, since the typical poor immigrant to the West has everything to gain and nothing to lose from such a voting strategy.

The idea that democracy, and in particular representative democracy, is counter-productive to the welfare of society has existed since the 19th century as the first effect of this system upon society started to be felt, by keen observers like sociologist Robert Michels and Italian historian Gaetano Mosca. It is not a coincidence that the dramatic growth of the state started approximately at the same time as the advent of universal suffrage.

The next decade is going to be rough socially and economically for the European populations if they do not politically take matters into their own hands and affirm their will and their freedom, using not only the standard passive “democratic” ballot box, but by exerting signification public pressure using all means available (mass demonstrations, social media, grassroots movements). But in order to do that, it is necessary first that the root causes of the economic and political woes are clearly understood, by at least a large minority. This may be too much to ask without first going through a crisis that would beat some sense into the sleeping masses that have bought into today’s European statist interventionist model.

Saving “Democracy” at ANY cost

The long festering twin problems of democracy have now reached a critical point. Though the European political elites continue to pay lip service to “European values” such as “freedom” and “democracy”, these values are now quite openly rejected by these same elites, as if controlling the Europeans has now become more important than hoodwinking them. Europe’s political and financial elite is doing its utmost to prevent any political party from taking power that does not stick to the existing globalist interventionist program either from the left or the right, as shown in Germany, France, and Romania.

Even the astute Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, made a list of harsh but justified accusations specifically to the European powers. He accused them of :

“Acting outside the law; of violating their own declared laws of equality, of going against the principles of fair competition, of not respecting the presumption of innocence, of not respecting for private property, of disregarding freedom of expression, of hindering the freedom to access information, of violating international law, and of supporting and encouraging “nazi” ideologies both in Ukraine and abroad.”

But such pertinent criticism of Europe comes not only from the East but also from the West; best articulated in US Vice President’s J.D. Vance’s speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, warning specifically against the creeping decline of free speech protections in Europe, not least using the EU’s Digital Services Act :

“Now, to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion, or, God forbid, vote a different way, or, even worse, win an election.”

Given all that has now come out publicly, the comments from Lavrov and Vance do not seem exaggerated, and point to the urgent need for a complete political reset in Europe. In fact, it should be up to the people of Europe, or at least the major opposition parties, to make such accusations against the governments and bureaucrats currently in power, not (only) for the Russia’s FM or US’s VP!

The AfD party in Germany has been doing this to some extent, but generally, the self-criticism is far too timid in European circles. This points still to a lack of political understanding of the momentous shifts going on. Perhaps only a complete strategic defeat and humiliation for Europeans leaders in Ukraine and a continent-wide economic crisis would, possibly, elicit a much-needed mea culpa. That could be the low point for Europe, politically, but which could bring a rebirth.

What is Needed?

It is not more "democracy" that is needed therefore, but more freedom : a smaller state, with less political power, more local decision-making and a deep program of liberalization, in order to put into efficient private hands what has been in inefficient public hands. If the EU center were cut down to size and magically had only the power it had, say, on the 1st of Jan 1958 (when the Rome Treaty came into force, which created the European Economic Community), then what would it matter if it were not democratic and transparent, since it would have no say over local European societies whatsoever? And if the European states were stripped of their institutional power, reglementary reach and fiscal pressure that they are able to bring to bear today, and magically returned to their size and status that they had in, say, the year 1900, then what would it matter if they were not “democratic”?

Indeed, it is not a coincidence that the demand for “democracy” rose as the state started amassing more and more power in society. A sign of the foulness of this growth is that it took place mainly through war; it was during WWI and WWII that the states of Europe grew tremendously and acquired for themselves powers of control over society which they had never had previously. Things never completely returned to normal when peace returned, as Robert Higgs explained in Crisis and Leviathan.

The solution is clear. The problem is how to get there, considering how far down the path of authoritarianism, socialization and neo-Keynesianism Europe has gone. As mentioned, such change could probably require a deep crisis, both economic and political, accompanied by ferocious public pressure for change. The “good” news is that this crisis might already be on the way.