People can think of thousands of reasons against democracy, yet only think of one for it: it’s fair. Now, it is not my intention to negate the importance of democracy, but rather to understand why it is considered the most important political goal.
Reasons against democracy
Firstly, the issue of democracy is what many consider its greatest strength: the fact that everyone can vote. Let me explain. The opinion of someone who is simple of mind – someone who wanders into the polls and casts a vote at random – holds the same weight as a political analyst because it is their right to vote. This is not fair to the educated people, who learned about the political parties before casting their votes. An example of ‘simple-minded’ people would be the ex-Trump supporters, who did not read Project 2025 and are now shocked at his actions. This is not a one-time occurrence; voters are often uninformed, making them susceptible to propaganda and manipulation. Furthermore, democracy is often thought to be false. For example, the democracy in Greece, that was not a true democracy because women, children, slaves and non-rich people could not vote. Similarly now, children are one of the oppressed classes – though I believe that children should not vote without every member of the society voting. Although it would not be considered ‘true’ democracy, a true democracy would be even more unfair as children are easily influenced and this would result in the harming of the rest of the society. The majority has the power to act tyrannically, their ideas oppressing the minority. We have seen this in history; democracy did not bring about women’s suffrage, it acted against it as an imposition of women’s rights.
Communist reasons against democracy
Modern democratic states emerged from bourgeois revolutions, set up systems in replacement of aristocratic rule that protected private property and the market system, benefitting only the rising capitalist class. When all can vote, it still reflects economic power. It is no secret that wealth influences politics: lobbying is widely popular and campaigns require money so wealthy groups have a disproportionate influence, ultimately giving rise to a pseudo aristocracy. Law and institutions protect the rights to property and capital accumulation and the rights of workers are often used to influence the economy, in that deregulation increases economic activity.
People are said to be equal in the political sphere, but in reality their economic inequality is still prevalent. Lenin (dictatorship of the proletariat) called the modern liberal democracy the dictatorship of the bourgeois, as the elites dominate the political sphere (the pseudo aristocracy I was talking about before) .
Pseudo aristocracy
Modern elites often function as a pseudo aristocracy, not through formal titles, but through the concentration of power across economic, cultural and institutional domains. Unlike historical aristocracies that relied on legal privilege and lineage, contemporary elites maintain influence through networks, education and control of key institutions.
Firstly we must understand the creation of the upper class. Adam Smith in the wealth of nations argued that capitalism depends fundamentally on the saving and the accumulation of capital to gain the capital necessary for capitalism. When individuals saved part of their income instead of consuming it they created capital to invest in tools, materials and wages, this investment expanded production allowing for markets and the division of labour to grow over time. While this may work on a small scale, in Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation mentioned in his book “Capital”, he describes how it would lead to a historical transfer of wealth up to the elites. This happened through processes like the enclosure movement, colonialism and dispossession, where land and resources were concentrated among elites, forcing many workers to become labourers in the new capitalist economy.
Now having successfully earned wealth and the power it comes with, they work to retain it. I could write a separate article just on this topic but in the interest of brevity, we will skip this and talk about the consolidation of political power. To campaign requires money, and money from these elites are given to politicians in turn for them to keep their interests at heart. Legal exemptions are present as settlements outside of court: expensive lawyers are there to fundamentally help the rich evade consequences, furthermore bails and fines are completely useless. In such, the elites harbor all of the qualities of the aristocracy: they pass down, via lineage, their family name, carrying with it influence and of course the inheritance money. This allows them to be exempt from the rules and to hugely influence politics.
In defence of democracy
A democratic system provides mechanisms for accountability through regular elections, free media and the fact that independent courts leaders must answer to the public. When they fail, citizens may replace them through impeachment and such. This reduces the likelihood of violent power struggles and allows societies to correct mistakes over time.
Democracy also protects freedoms such as speech, assembly and others. These freedoms allow citizens to debate ideas, criticise authority and advocate for change. While this can produce disagreement or slow decision making (other so-called negatives of democracy but they do not seem that important), it leads to more thoughtful and legitimate outcomes as policies are shaped by diverse perspectives.
Democracy also encourages civic responsibility. Citizens are not passive but are expected to stay informed, vote and engage in public life. Over time, this participation strengthens communities and builds a sense of shared ownership over the future of a nation.
To conclude
It seems to have been an exercise in futility as I still have not reached a personal conclusion, however, if Marxist theory holds true, then I believe that the problem is not inherent in democracy, but rather it is due to the disparity of power that would be created in a democracy (concentration of power in the pseudo aristocracy).
