A CALL TO ARMS FOR DIVERSE DEMOCRACIES AND THEIR "DECENT MIDDLE" / THE FINANCIAL TIMES

A call to arms for diverse democracies and their ‘decent middle’

Yascha Mounk’s ‘The Great Experiment’ looks at how faltering heterogeneous societies can thrive

Martin Wolf

People paint ‘Count every vote’ on a San Francisco street on the day of the US presidential election, November 2020 © New York Times/Redux/eyevine

Human beings, notes Yascha Mounk, are “groupish”. 

This is humanity’s biggest asset, but also a source of great woe. 

The larger the perceived differences among the groups we belong to the greater the likelihood of hostility among them.

Yet, in recent decades, high-income democracies have become substantially more diverse. 

Is it possible for such societies also to be stable democracies? 

This is the question Mounk, a writer on populism and democracy of German Jewish extraction, addresses. 

Now living and working in the US, he describes what is being attempted as a “great experiment”.

Scepticism about the feasibility or desirability of diverse democracies characterises extremes on both the right and the left. 

The right argues that descendants of the “true-born” citizens must retain control. 

The left insists that this is a war between sinful hereditary oppressors and righteous hereditary oppressed, which has to be resolved by a clear victory of the latter over the former.

These opposing pessimisms are, argues Mounk, fundamentally self-defeating. 

The success of the great experiment depends on mobilising support from the decent middle. 

The latter will never embrace an irremediably negative view of their country’s past or a future of endless conflict among irreconcilable identities. 

But they are willing to compromise and adjust over time.

The Great Experiment is divided into responses to three big questions.

The first is: when do diverse societies go wrong? 

Mounk’s answer is that they do so in three ways: anarchy; domination; and fragmentation. 

Anarchy means the absence of any effective central government, as in Afghanistan. 

Domination comes in three forms: “hard domination” in which majorities exercise near absolute control over minorities, as in the southern states of the US before the Civil War; “soft domination”, in which minorities are marginalised or disenfranchised, as in those states after the civil war; and “minority domination”, as in South Africa under apartheid.

Finally, there is fragmentation. 

This is frequently worsened by systems of explicit power sharing, as in Lebanon or Northern Ireland. 

In such cases, the political recognition of pre-existing group identities strengthens predatory and power-seeking group elites while undermining loyalty to society as a whole. 

Yet “conflict entrepreneurs” of right and left are busily promoting precisely such ruinous fragmentation, argues Mounk.

His second question is: what should diverse democracies seek to become? 

This section considers the role of the state, patriotism, demands for cultural uniformity, and pursuit of a “meaningfully shared life”.

Mounk argues, rightly, not only that a strong state is essential for a diverse democracy, but also that “it is individuals, not the groups to which they belong, who are the fundamental building blocks of society.” 

Groups have no comparable legitimacy: the lines they seek to draw around individuals are arbitrary, far from exclusive, and frequently oppressive. 

The elevation of group rights above those of individuals is a huge mistake.

He also argues in favour of civic and cultural patriotism. 

A democracy needs citizens who share a common identity. 

Without this, why should they consider the elections they lose to be legitimate? 

Patriotism is the best label we have for that shared civic and cultural identity.

It is unnecessary for the citizenry to become culturally uniform. 

That too would be oppressive, even boring. 

But it cannot be too diverse either: so, a diverse democracy should be neither a “melting pot” nor a “salad bowl”. 

Diverse democracies “should be bustling yet peaceful and heterogeneous without being fragmented.”

Finally, it is dangerous and counterproductive to emphasise the impossibility of a meaningfully shared life. 

On the right, this takes the form of insistence that majority cultures must remain untouched by contact with those of minorities. 

On the left, this takes the form of insistence that minorities should turn their identities into fortresses. 

A depressing example of the latter is the contemporary hostility to imitation, that most characteristic of human behaviours, now anathematised as “cultural appropriation”.

The third big question is: how can diverse societies succeed? 

Mounk’s answer is that we must build democracies that attract the “wholehearted support” of all their members: “societies whose residents feel pride in their collective accomplishments, encounter strangers with an open mind, and are capable of sustaining real solidarity with each other”.

Is this possible? 

Yes, he insists. 

Much pessimism exists nowadays. 

But it is exaggerated: it is not true that identities are immutable; and it is not true either that members of minority communities are doomed to economic and social failure.

Building diverse democracies is indeed hard. 

But, given the current composition of our societies, no alternative exists

Good policy can also help. It is necessary, for example, to develop policies favouring inclusive prosperity, by defeating monopoly, funding scientific research, and spreading education more widely. 

It is also necessary to create ladders to success for those most disadvantaged, restore the effectiveness of political institutions, and, finally, fight against polarisation in favour of mutual respect.

The fundamental argument of The Great Experiment is correct both morally and practically. 

Building diverse democracies is indeed hard. 

But, given the current composition of our societies, no alternative exists.

The book does have limitations. 

It has very little to say on the economy and next to nothing to say on class. 

Yet it is impossible to understand what has happened if one does not consider the rise in inequality and the power of concentrated wealth and organised corporate interests.

There is also very much to admire, above all the author’s outspoken and lucid defence of liberal values and his condemnation of those who advocate a politics built on group identities. 

Not only are these identities fluid and arbitrary, but the identity politics of minorities are sure to ignite the countervailing identity politics of fearful majorities. 

In a democracy, the latter will win.

The only possible foundation for a diverse democracy is protection of rights and guarantees of security for all individuals. 

This demands a protective state, the rule of law, a prosperous economy, widespread opportunity, a patriotic culture, and individual freedoms. 

These values are now under attack from all sides. 

If they are not defended, democracy will founder. 

Mounk offers a coherent and well-written call to arms. 

His cause is right.