Democracy
Chapter 2 - Society
Previous page: Economic data - Democracy - Next page: Demographics
Back to Book content or directly to Main Page
.
.png)
Welcome to the Democracy page
.
A minimalist definition of democracy is that rulers are elected through competitive elections. A more expansive definition links democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights.
.
Core ideas
.
The term “democracy”, refers very generally to a method of collective decision-making characterised by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process. Four aspects of this definition should be noted.
- First, democracy concerns collective decision-making, which means decisions that are made for groups and are intended to be binding on all the members of the group.
- Second, we intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organisations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organisations. The definition is also consistent with different electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation.
- Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions.
- Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building leading up to the vote.
“Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct referenda of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.
| Content Source |
|---|
| Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
.
Deep dive
.
Political systems
.
| Democracy | Socialism | Communism | Dictatorship |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a democracy, the community of people are considered to hold power over how they are governed. Kings and tyrants are seen as threats to the innate rights of the people. As such, all eligible citizens get equal say in decisions. | From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries. | From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. | A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual: a dictator. |
| Free elections. Suffrage. Majority Rule. | Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing. | Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system. | One leader, makes all of the peoples choices. |
| Democracies are meant to resist separation by class, politically or economically. Class distinctions can become pronounced, however, due to capitalist society. Varies from state to state. | Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility. | All class distinctions are eliminated. A society in which everyone is both the owners of the means of production and their own employees. | |
| Democracies tend to be free-market economies. Policies that govern economics are chosen by the voters (or their elected representatives in a representative democracy). | The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets. | The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance. | Government control everything. |
.
| Link to Wikipedia | Link to SEP | |
|---|---|---|
| Democracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/ |
| Representative democracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy | |
| Communism | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism | |
| Oligarchy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy | |
| Plutocracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy | |
| Dictatorship | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship | |
| Military dictatorship | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship | |
| Stratocracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy | |
| Aristocracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy | |
| Feudalism | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism | |
| Theocracy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy |
.
| Description | |
|---|---|
| Kakistocracy | The Economist has chosen its word of the year 2024: "kakistocracy," the rule of bad or incompetent people. It's an old word that comes from the Greek "kakos", which means bad, and "kratein" which means to rule. The rule of bad people is not a new thing. History is filled with incompetent monarchs and leaders who made bad choices. |
.
.
.
Human rights
.
In line with political and social rights, we can think about basic economic rights. That fits in with a historical trend towards equal rights. There is much to be said for that. But how do you organise that? How do you ensure that everyone gets a basic economic right? We already have that in the form of education, health care and many other things the government guarantees for everyone.
| Declaration of the human rights |
|---|
| https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights |
.
| Link to Wikipedia | Link to SEP | |
|---|---|---|
| Rights | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ | |
| Human rights | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ |
| Political rights | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights | |
| Econ. Social, Cultural rights | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights |
.
.
Democratic punishment
Social comparison
People frequently assess themselves and others in areas such as physical attractiveness, wealth, intelligence, and success. According to social comparison theory, developed by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, individuals derive their sense of social and personal worth by comparing themselves to others. (See also Socioeconomic status). Subsequent research suggests that while these comparisons can inspire self-improvement, they can also lead to profound dissatisfaction, guilt, and destructive behaviors.
When seeking to boost self-esteem, individuals often compare themselves to those perceived as less fortunate. While this can provide temporary relief, it may foster unhealthy habits. Similarly, comparing “upward” more often than “downward” – a phenomenon known as positional bias – can trigger feelings of inadequacy and competitiveness, leading to biased, judgmental, or overly self-superior attitudes.
Dr. Claire Nakajima, Psychologist Resident in New York City, explainsː “Comparing yourself with others in a way that’s driven by envy or jealousy can sour relationships, feed insecurities, and color your experience of what could otherwise be very enjoyable and precious moments. When you’re constantly comparing others favorably to yourself, your self-esteem is also going to be negatively impacted, and this can contribute to feelings of anxiety and depression.”
.
In- and outgroup thinking
The tendency to distinguish between "us" and "them" emerges early in human development. By the age of three or four, children already begin to categorize people by race and gender, display more negative attitudes toward perceived "others," and are more likely to interpret other-race faces as angrier than same-race faces. Remarkably, a mere 50-millisecond exposure to a face of a different race can activate the amygdala. Similarly, the brain quickly classifies faces by gender or social status at comparable speeds.
Oxytocin, often referred to as the "bonding hormone," amplifies this "us/them" divide. It enhances trust, generosity, and cooperation within one's group but simultaneously promotes less favorable behavior toward outsiders. This includes increased preemptive aggression in economic interactions and greater willingness to endorse sacrificing "them" (but not "us") for the perceived greater good.
Parochial biases are activated simply by grouping people, even when the basis for the grouping is superficial or arbitrary. A common example occurs among tourists abroad, who quickly form bonds with others sharing the same nationality, despite lacking prior connections.
Cultural identity is shaped by values, beliefs, ideologies, and attributions—elements that are largely intangible until paired with visible markers like clothing, adornments, or regional accents. Over time, these arbitrary symbols, initially representative of deeper cultural values, can take on independent significance, transforming from signifiers into the very essence of what they represent.
.
Being afraid that Them approaching you will rob you is rife with affect and particularism. But fearing that those Thems will take our jobs, manipulate the banks, dilute our bloodlines, make our children gay, etc., requires future-oriented cognition about economics, sociology, political science, and pseudoscience. Despite the importance of thought in Us/Them-ing, its core is emotional and automatic. Such automaticity generates statements like “I can’t put my finger on why, but it’s just wrong when They do that.” Work by Jonathan Haidt of NYU shows that in such circumstances, cognitions are post-hoc justifications for feelings and intuitions to convince yourself that you have indeed rationally put your finger on why.
.
Us
We are more correct, wise, moral, and worthy when it comes to knowing what the gods want, running the economy, raising kids or fighting this war—feelings about Us centre on shared obligations, willingness and expectation of mutuality. In economic games (game theory), players are more trusting, generous, and cooperative with in-group than out-group members. People often support the in-group by being more antisocial to another group. So, in-group parochialism is usually more concerned about Us beating Them than with Us simply doing well.
.
Them
Thems come in different flavours—threatening and angry, disgusting and repellent, primitive and undifferentiated.
In economic games (game theory), people implicitly treat members of other races as less trustworthy or reciprocating. But Thems do not solely evoke a sense of menace; sometimes it’s disgust. Pictures of drug addicts or the homeless typically activate the insula (disgust), not the amygdala (fear). In the words of the psychologist Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania, “Disgust serves as an ethnic or out-group marker.”
When an in-group mocks an out-group, it’s to solidify negative stereotypes and reify the hierarchy. In line with this, individuals with a high “social dominance orientation” (acceptance of hierarchy and group inequality) are most likely to enjoy jokes about out-groups.
Thems are also frequently viewed as simpler and more homogeneous than Us, with simpler emotions and less sensitivity to pain. Essentialism is all about viewing Them as homogeneous and interchangeable, the idea that while we are individuals, they have a monolithic, immutable, icky essence.
.
Us < > Them
We tend to think of Us as noble, loyal, and composed of distinctive individuals whose failings are due to circumstance. Thems, in contrast, seem disgusting, ridiculous, simple, homogeneous, undifferentiated, and interchangeable.
Conscious judgments about Thems are unconsciously manipulated in the real world. In an important experiment, morning commuters at train stations in predominantly white suburbs filled out questionnaires about political views. Then, at half the stations, a pair of young Mexicans, conservatively dressed, appeared each morning for two weeks, chatting quietly in Spanish before boarding the train. Then, commuters filled out the second questionnaire. Remarkably, the presence of such pairs made people more supportive of decreasing legal immigration from Mexico and of making English the official language and more opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The manipulation was selective, not changing attitudes about Asian Americans, African Americans, or Middle Easterners.
The automatic features of Us/Them-ing can extend to magical contagion, a belief that people's essentialism can transfer to objects or other organisms.
The "confirmation biases" used to rationalize and justify automatic Them-ing are numerous—remembering supportive better than opposing evidence; testing things in ways that can support but not negate your hypothesis; sceptically probing outcomes you don't like more than ones you do.
.
Predictably, making hierarchies steeper, more consequential, or more overt worsens Them-ing; the need for justification fuels those on top to pour the stereotypes of, at best, high warmth/low competence or, worse, low warmth/low competence onto the heads of those struggling at the bottom, and those on the bottom reciprocate with the simmering time bomb that is the perception of the ruling class as low warmth/high competence.
This is shown in studies examining social dominance orientation (SDO: how much someone values prestige and power) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA: how much someone values centralized authority, the rule of law, and convention). High-SDO individuals show the most significant increases in automatic prejudices when feeling threatened, more acceptance of bias against low-status out-groups, and, if male, more tolerance of sexism. As discussed, people high in SDO or RWA are less bothered by hostile humour about out-groups. Particularly interesting are hierarchies that map onto Us/Them categories (for example, when race and ethnicity overlap heavily with socioeconomic status). In those cases, those on top tend to emphasize the convergence of the hierarchies and the importance of assimilating the values of the core hierarchy.
.
| Content source |
|---|
| R. Sapolsky - Behave - Penguin Press - 2017 |
.
Do-gooder derogation
Dan Pallotta is an American entrepreneur and humanitarian activist who has made a career out of raising funds for charities. He has organized benefit walks for breast cancer and bike rides for AIDS and successfully raised millions of dollars in charities' bank accounts.
Meanwhile, Dan Pallotta also made a nice profit himself. He believed that making money and doing good could go hand in hand. However, public opinion was unforgiving when it came out that he paid himself a lavish salary of almost four hundred thousand dollars a year. This so-called good guy was secretly just a money-grubber.
The fact that he did raise money for cancer and AIDS patients did not soften the critics in their judgment. After all the controversy, he had to file for bankruptcy, which also dried up an important source of income for cancer foundations. A frustrated Pallotta would later put it this way: "You want to make a million selling violent video games to children? Go for it! Do you want to make a million to help children cure cancer? Then you are branded a parasite." Those who take a moral stand often pay a social price, especially when they deviate from the prevailing norm. If a virtuous group (e.g. vegans) propagate too lofty ideals, they place themselves outside the larger social group. Some do-gooders sometimes do not live up to their ideals to avoid these social costs.
Do-gooder derogation is a classic (physical) response of people who feel threatened. If you want to belong to the do-gooder ingroup, you must also follow the moral positions of that group. But if you do not wish to or cannot do this, you adopt a negative attitude towards this group.
.
Altuïstic punishment
Punishment is considered altruistic when it imposes a cost on the punisher with the aim of altering the behavior of the punished. Scientific evidence for altruistic punishment emerges from game theory experiments, particularly in the context of public goods games.
In a typical public goods experiment, participants are grouped randomly into sets of four. Each participant is given an initial allocation of money and must decide how much to keep and how much to contribute to a shared pool, or "public good." The total contributions to the public good are doubled by the experimenter and then distributed equally among all group members, regardless of individual contributions. This setup creates a cooperation dilemma: while collective investment benefits the group as a whole, individuals can maximize their own gain by contributing nothing (free riding) while still benefiting from the contributions of others.
These experiments are conducted anonymously, and participants are paid based on their decisions. The game is repeated multiple times, with participants assigned to new groups each round. Under these conditions, contributing to the public good is altruistic, as it incurs a personal cost while benefiting others in the group. Initially, participants tend to contribute, but altruistic cooperation typically diminishes over time.
A variation of the game introduces a punishment mechanism: after contributions are revealed, participants have the option to punish others. Punishment is costly—each unit spent by the punisher causes the punished individual to lose three units. From a purely money-maximizing perspective, punishment is irrational, as it reduces the punisher’s payoff and offers no direct benefit due to the lack of future interactions with the punished individual.
Nonetheless, experimental results consistently show that many participants choose to punish free riders. This behavior is deemed altruistic because it involves personal cost without expectation of direct benefit, yet it enforces norms that encourage cooperation. Future group members benefit from the punished free rider’s increased willingness to contribute, illustrating the broader social value of altruistic punishment.
.
| Content source |
|---|
| Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. - The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791 - 2003 |
| Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. - Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140 - 2002 |
.
In behavioural experiments, altruistic punishment has effectively enforced cooperation among unrelated and anonymous humans (Fehr & Gachter 2002; Fehr & Fischbacher 2003).
Results show that cooperation is only maintained if conditions for altruistic punishment are relatively favourable: low cost for the punisher and high impact on the punished. Our results indicate that punishment is strongly governed by its cost-to-impact ratio. Its effect on cooperation can be pinned down to one variable: the threshold level of free-riding that goes unpunished. Results are consistent with the interpretation that punishment decisions come from an amalgam of emotional response and cognitive cost–impact analysis and suggest that altruistic punishment alone can maintain cooperation under multi-level natural selection. Also, combining costly punishment with reputation building through indirect reciprocations seems to be very effective in increasing the efficiency of public goods experiments.
Altruistic punishment effectively enforces cooperation when individual and group payoffs are relatively low, and cooperation is successfully enforced.
| Content source |
|---|
| M. Egas - The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation - Proceedings of the Royal Society - 2008 |
.
The rise of autocratic leaders
Key-takeaways from the above
- Us/Them-ing is fundamental to humans and promotes cooperation toward Us but crappier behaviour toward Them
- Social comparison is fundamental to human; it can promote judgment, biases and competitive behaviour
- Own values, prestige and power trigger prejudices when feeling threatened
- Power tends to emphasize the convergence of the hierarchies and the importance of assimilating the values of the core hierarchy
- Do-gooder derogation appears when doing good seems too costly
- Altruistic punishment (punishment with a cost for the punisher) appears when the perceived threats from Them transcend a threshold
- Altruistic punishment effectively enforces cooperation among the ingroup
.
Threats from Thems make (autocratic) societies more internally cooperative
We consider here WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries, with on the one hand the 'Egalitarian Community-driven Pluralism' thinking and, on the other hand, a 'Social Dominance Orientation / Right-Wing Authoritarianism' culture.
.
Step 1ː 'Us-Them' thinking
We live in a hyper-connected world with the possibility of migrating faster than ever. Migrants no longer come individually but in more significant numbers, sharpening the 'Us-Them' thinking.
Most people tend to adopt a moderate 'Egalitarian Community-driven Pluralism' attitude as long as their upper limit of 'Us-Them' thinking is not reached in society. We know this from the beginning of the "Wir Schaffen Das" thinking in Germany.
But the threshold value of this is under pressure.
Step 2ː The burden of doing good
The first hurdle is the effort it takes to do good. Added to this is the mental pain (this can be as strong as physical pain) that comes from the community or others asking to do good. When this burden becomes too much to bear, the mood changes to an extra level of 'Us-Them' thinking, 'elite good-doers' versus 'Us'.
Which triggers a downward spiral.
Step 3ː Threat
'Them' becomes an economic threat, and 'Us' becomes increasingly afraid of 'Them as different people'.
But, individually punishing 'Them' is very costly.
Step 4ː Solution
There is a solution: altuïstic punishment. We outsource punishment, even when it comes with a cost.
Step 5ː The positive trade-off
The trade-off is positive:
- Only one little costː support the 'Social Dominance Orientation / Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and
- you will have no more personal burden from 'Egalitarian Community-driven Pluralism' asking to do good and no more burden of needing to punish others yourself.
'Right-Wing Authoritarianism' says that they will punish the elite (those who ask you to do good) and 'Them' who threaten you in your existence.
Step 6ː The ease of an autocratic regime
The human energy cost of living under an autocratic regime is much lower than the energy spent on continuing to do good under the threat of fear-inducing 'Thems'.
In WEIRD countries, an institutional (autocratic) punisher, punishing free riders for you, is preferred.
Step 7ː The promise of the autocratic regime
'Thems' are given one choice: adopt our values and standards or leave. The common belief is that punishing 'Thems' leads to cooperation with 'Us' through embracing our values and norms.
This will remove the threat to 'Us'.
Step 8ː The danger of an autocratic regime
Because the community has given away a large part of its power to the regime through the principle of 'altruistic punishment', the regime will do everything to make this appear as 'democratic punishment'.
But with the powertransfer also comes the supervision of the values and norms in the community.
.
Do you want to know more?
.
| Our World in Data |
|---|
| People living in democracies and autocracies, World |
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/people-living-in-democracies-autocracies |
.
| IDEA |
|---|
| International IDEA is an intergovernmental organization (IGO) with a mandate to support sustainable democracy worldwide. |
| https://www.idea.int/ |
.
| The Council of Europe |
|---|
| Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people |
| https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy |
.
| CEPR |
|---|
| CEPR, established in 1983, is an independent, non‐partisan, pan‐European non‐profit organization. Its mission is to enhance the quality of policy decisions through providing policy‐relevant research, based soundly in economic theory, to policymakers, the private sector and civil society. |
| https://cepr.org/ |
.