Democracy and Ochlocracy in 20th Century Leviathan States

I wrote it originally as part of my historical era's series, but after some thought decided to divest it into separate article.

Both democratic and totalitarian nations of 20th century are the leviathan nations of this era. However, why different nations end up so different. Why some become democratic and others totalitarian. Why some nations create great quality of life and more livable system than was in times before. Yet others instead create a truly intolerable conditions and never before seen horrors. Both were sides of the same coin and the same trend that sometimes went well and other times not so.

In both cases there was extreme collectivism and association from the collective or a group, a nation. Based on instinctual herd mentality, it was one thing that was behind best and worst examples of era of Nation states.

In best examples it was people who voted for responsible government by people for the people and deliver a prosperity for citizens. In worst examples it was also people who voted to oppress minorities, invade foreign countries and commit atrocities. Both are outcomes of popular decision making, of democracy!? 

After all wars of 20th century was fought by massive armies of citizens, not by bands of mercenaries or regular retunes, payrolled by rich absolutist monarchs of 17 and 18 centuries and their bureaucratic machine states. One individual cannot rally or payroll a 20th century army. These armies were a collective effort on a massive never before seen scene. Such effort was not possible without popular approval and consent.

The so-called dictators, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin or Mao were cunning populists who could rally their people to commit atrocities history now give them near sole credit for. They were not self-made man who could organize such things with their own resources. In 20th century no one could do something like that. All the dictators I listed were mediocre people, lacking in resources, talents or abilities. They could hardly start and run a gym on their own. If they had any talent, then that was charismatic public speaking and being a figure, people could relate to. Yet it was this charisma and relatability that propelled people to heights of power in 20th century. Yet people of Germany Russia and China rallied behind these figures and chose them to lead them and their countries.

Why such a difference? Why some people vote for sensible reasonable things and others start world wars.

Best examples are simple, they are the traditional liberal democracies of Anglosphere, that world around them strives to imitate, but often fails.

Yet its worst examples that require further study to understand what went wrong there and why?

The Analisys

To begin the analysis let's set some terms. We will not call Nazi and communist regimes democracies. While they were outcomes of popular vote and not people falling hostage to a single man or an armed force. Because of that they are not one-man rule dictatorship or tyranny. However, due to malicious and unenlightened nature of their rule, we should not call them democracies. Instead, they were ochlocracies, a rule by a violent mob. Violent mob are people, they are not dictator, they could be majority in any given state. I used this term in my other article about Political Compass. 

Ancient Greeks also used these terms: benevolent rule of majority was democracy; malevolent rule of the violent mob was ochlocracy. Greeks had similar terms for other forms or authority. Benevolent rule of the small group of worthy individuals was aristocracy, different meaning to how we use this word today to denote people of inherited peerage instead. Self-serving rule by small clique of close associate was in contrast oligarchy. In the same way a benevolent rule by one person was monarchy and a malevolent abuse of power by one individual was tyranny. 

Thus, democracy is when it turns out right and ochlocracy is when it goes wrong. So why do some democracies devolve into ochlocracies?

The simplest, but incomplete answer is different people are different, a democracy by malevolent evil people will always become ochlocracy. When two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner, then outcome would not be pretty. WWII begin when two wolfs, Nazi Germany and USSR voted to dine on Poland and in less than a month the sheep was eaten.

I can bring examples from Russia and eastern Europe. These areas are known for their envy heavy societies. When someone doing good, most people envy their success and hold grunge against them. They think it is unfair how he got so lucky in life, and they are stuck in their shit instead. 

There is even a local joke about it. A guy found a lamp and a genie appeared before him. Genie told the guy that he can wish for anything, and he would get it. However, he will give the guy's neighbor twice as much as he will give him. The guy then says, cut one of my legs and then cut both legs from my neighbor. So much he is bothered by envy so that he cannot live with a million bucks if he knows that his neighbor has two million and therefore twice as rich. He would rather be miserable if he knows that his neighbor twice as miserable.

Such place is a horrible place to live if you are good at anything at all. Envious people around you will tear you to shreds even without Stalin. That is why Putin and elites hide their wealth from common people in the areas around Moscow, not mapped on any map. That is why he vehemently denied owning the palace and aquatic disco. That is why they killed Navalny for releasing this video.

Politicians can of course capitalize on such sentiment and keep throwing baseless conjectures on why the better off guy did not make his money honestly and therefore deserves punishment for his illicit wealth. Lack of definitive proof or any proof for that matter would have stopped that in real court, but in ochlocracy that is good enough. Stalin ruled many decades, by constantly throwing his angry wolfs more and more scapegoats, whom he of course blamed for all the problems in the country. When punishing the alleged wrongdoers did not solve these problems he would prepare yet more scapegoats.

Even nowadays, when we have access to KGB archives and know for certain that repressed 'scapegoats' did nothing wrong and KGB was given quotas on how many innocents they have to prepare as sacrifice, some still believe false allegations against these 'enemies of the people' as Stalin labelled these innocent repressed people.

This scapegoating is in many ways like burning of heretics during Middle Ages of Gladiator Fights during High Roman Empire. History is cyclic.

Hitler too blamed German loss in WWI and subsequent economic crisis on Jews, communists and several other groups. He then rallied the rest of the country against them.

However German example is more complex than that. During Weimar Republic times, they kept voting in favor of moderate politicians and against Hitler and NSDAP. During 20s NSDAP vote kept decreasing. If that would have continued, no one would have remembered them as anything other than Beer Hall Riot. 

Yet things changed in 30s, and NSDAP vote suddenly started to mushroom. What did caused people to change their mind? Great Recession, struck by poverty and lack of jobs and income, public wanted a solution to this problem. In the US there was FRD with his New Deal, despite all opposition from conservative right, who saw New Deal as undue government interference with economy, American people kept re-electing FDR. 

In Germany only Hitler was willing to play role of FDR and all other parties were like American conservative right and preferred to look the other way and not talk about unemployment and starvation.

With that you can see how worsening of economic conditions radicalizes people and those who thought Hitler was madman when economy was doing well, suddenly changed their mind and decided that he was right for the job.

Russian Revolution was another such example of right time for challenging times. Lenin and Bolsheviks were willing to go furthest and approve even the most radial proposals, that everyone else thought that it was going too far and cannot be approved. To some extend not even Lenin probably anticipated how far it all will go. Seeing no results, public of Petrograd shifted more and more to towards the most radical guy on offer.

This last section does apply to our current times, when cost of living crisis and other challenges do push people towards radicalism. Even someone as unthinkable as Donald Trump could win the US election simply because he was more vocal about issues that Democrats were. Yet he is a reaction to the reality on the ground. Things are not alright, and something has to be done about it. This is no time for an ostrich politician who see no issues and talk no issues.

Solutions

So how we can protect democracy and prevent it from turning into ochlocracy. There are multiple and many. Each for its own problem.

First is structural. Democracy needs not just popular vote but also rule of law and human rights. These three pillars can support a stable and prosperous society. Wolfs cannot vote to each sheep if ship has protected rights, such as right to live. That is why European Union created court for human rights, to protect people from wolf's vote.

Law too has to respect human rights, without its legislators could simply create inhuman repressive laws. 

All the totalitarian ochlocracy examples had no due respect for human rights. Communism explicitly rejects this concept and Nazism ignores it.

Second is more complex. Falling quality of life and standards of living is a very serious challenge to democracy and can turn it into ochlocracy if it remains unresolved. Modern democracies currently struggle with just this problem. 

Here however solution lies not in structures of preaching, but in improving quality of life. Starving masses cannot be told to respect rights of those who own food. Democracies has to make sure people have enough means to survive and live a decent life, without it democracies would further and further erode into ochlocracies. 

People will vote for a genocidal maniac who can promise them food over a saint who insist that stealing is wrong even if you die of starvation otherwise.