Politics is among other things, Mölder said in a Vikerraadio daily commentary, always a never-ending battle over the meaning of words and concepts. Words are tools for understanding the world, as well as for changing it. Understanding today's political reality can be hindered by the often deliberately blurred meanings of those words used to describe it — for instance liberalism, populism, and democracy — as for each person, these words are tools which get used differently.

One of the major challenges facing Western democracies today is figuring out how to deal with the growing dissatisfaction that is expressed in the rising support for parties opposed to the so-called political ruling class. Terms like "populism" or "far-right" are in common use, but are quite poor descriptions of this phenomenon, as one is too vague, while the other is likely to deliberately be off-putting.

Defining democracy is thus a hopeless task, since it is an inherently contested concept. For liberalism in its classical sense, things might be a little clearer at least. The greatest consensus in recent history on how these two concepts — liberalism and democracy — fit together is perhaps found in the definition by American political scientist Robert Dahl, who summarizes it in his concept of polyarchy. Its central elements are: Freedom of association, freedom of speech, universal suffrage, and the right to run for political office. Plus of course the right of politicians to compete with each other for public support and votes.

Additionally, polyarchy requires the presence of diverse information channels in society, free and fair elections, and institutions that ensure government policy reflects election outcomes. This was precisely at the core of liberal democracy in Western countries, not so long ago. Nowadays however it is hard to provide a concise definition of liberal democracy.

The emphasis lies elsewhere and goes beyond the polyarchy as described above. It seems that at its core lies the belief that the state must play a specific and substantive role in implementing policies and social change. "The state must implement policies which are right or good, regardless of whether there is demand for them among the electorate or not."

Democracy is not only concerned with how the state is structured and how political competition and representation function, but also about political outcomes.

Take everything that falls under the concept of human rights. We all agree that human rights should not hinge on the will of the electorate. But what then do they depend on? Fifty years ago, the term meant much less than it does today. Its meaning has expanded significantly, while there has been a constant struggle over its expansion. Once something gets classified under human rights, it becomes untouchable — just as the most fundamental human rights are, and should be.

This has little to do with democracy, as it doesn't concern how those in power get replaced through free and fair elections, or how the electorate's preferences get turned into state policy. In the concept of liberal democracy, it is the idea of liberalism that carries the weight — not democracy. The latter comes as more of an afterthought. And when democratic input — the will of the majority — is at odds with the "right" policy, it is this input, not the policy, that is expected to yield.

Thus the term "liberal elitism" would be a somewhat more accurate description of an arrangement like this. At the center of this is how the more knowledgeable segment of the state-society or political class should be leading the political process. However when the democratic dimension recedes too far into the background, and policymaking and implementation go on regardless of whether there is electoral demand for them or not, things tend to turn sour.

We can add to this the changed information space of the last couple of decades, where individual voters have had a much greater role and much more freedom, and we arrive at the point we are at today. A situation where political systems in Europe and also in Estonia are increasingly divided between voters who are neutral or positive toward the political class, and those who are critical of it.

The democratic backlash to this liberal elitism also partly gets dismissed with terms like "populism" or, worse, "far-right." At the heart of these political currents is, among other things, a reminder to discontented voters that they should play a role and have a voice, in a democratic state. That aspect of politics has however moved forward in such a way that they have felt hopelessly left out.

A democratic political process, in whatever form, must take place in dialogue with voters, not by implementing top-down decisions, made in advance. If something is inherently right and good, the average voter should be capable of understanding it. And if they don't understand it, then maybe it isn't so right and good after all. And if the average voter is convinced of a policy's correctness, it can be implemented without major issues. No systemic defiance or backlash will arise.

The elitist dimension will inevitably always remain part of governance. And, hopefully, the democratic dimension won't disappear anytime soon either. Elitism is not a bad thing; this is natural. We cannot get rid of it, and we shouldn't want to.

People are unequal in their abilities, and the more capable should indeed take more of a lead role in governance. But in today's democratic state, the ruling class must do this more than ever before, in dialogue with voters, given that the information space of our societies has changed. Voters are far less willing to accept being placed in the backseat and strapped into a booster seat, where all they can do is look out the window, as the world passes them by.
Throughout all of this, patience is needed. Otherwise, the resentment and frustration will eventually boil over.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!