Max Tallberg
In my previous text, I focused primarily on how to make sound political decisions in today’s world—decisions that respect human rights, respond to global threats, are based on truthful knowledge, and lead to equal, just, and thriving societies. At the same time, democratic innovations should not only encourage good decisions and leaders but also protect society from those unfit for leadership. Ensuring this may, in fact, be even more important than encouraging good decisions, since it is often easier—at least in extreme cases—to identify when a particular person is unfit to make decisions, or when a decision blatantly contradicts evidence or sustainable values, than to know which decision would be the best in any given situation.
An epistocratic approach—where political decisions are made by those best suited to the role and most knowledgeable—could offer a solution to the problems I discussed earlier. It might also encourage capable individuals to seek positions of power. In such a model, barriers could be introduced to prevent unsuitable individuals from gaining power. Thus, epistocracy could serve both to ensure sound decisions and to prevent the rise of unfit leaders.
One way to prevent the rise of unqualified politicians could be to require all candidates for political office to undergo a personality test, which would be a prerequisite for seeking power. Similarly, it should be required that candidates promote and adopt democratic values and human rights. It would also be necessary to ensure that candidates possess the requisite societal knowledge, which could be assessed through testing. Without such knowledge, it is nearly impossible to make good decisions.
Politics and Power
Related to this, it might be wise to prevent politicians in power from changing the nature of their position while in office. A rule could be established that a sitting politician may not make changes to their role—particularly to their powers—and then remain in office after those changes take effect. This would temporally shield governance from personal interests. Politicians should never be in a position where personal gain is at stake in political decision-making—although, unfortunately, this is still often the case. Max Weber already noted that those involved in politics pursue power, often either to pursue ideological or egoistic interests or for power’s own sake, such as for prestige or position. In modern democracies, most politicians’ motives are likely a blend of these.
So, beyond the reforms already discussed, how can we best ensure and guarantee the proper functioning of democracy in today’s world? The most important factor would be to ensure that decisions are based on the right foundations—that they are grounded in evidence, open discussion, sound leadership, and appropriate values. To this end, the establishment of councils with the power to block poor decisions or unfit leaders has been proposed. These epistocratic councils would also always protect democratic values. Their very existence could discourage many immoral individuals from seeking political power. Democracy today should be capable of producing the best possible decisions, and epistocratic councils could assist in achieving this. Epistocracy might also elevate decision-makers we will need for future challenges—such as climate change—especially if media coverage focused on leaders’ decision-making abilities and expertise. Populism could also be expected to decline—or become a smaller threat—under epistocracy. Populists who promote authoritarianism should never be allowed access to power. Currently, democracy’s underminers operate from within its rules, making them even more dangerous.
In addition to testing politicians, some have proposed also testing voters for basic knowledge, making passing such a test a prerequisite for voting. Another idea would be to randomly select a small, representative segment of the population to participate more actively in political decision-making. This group could be subject to a qualification requirement—receiving training and voting rights if they pass a test before elections. A variation of this idea could be a system in which more knowledgeable individuals receive more votes. However, even such people may hold irrational or emotionally charged views—or be driven solely by self-interest.
Another suggested reform is the creation of an epistocratic council (already mentioned) made up of individuals who pass a rigorous test. This council would have veto power over societal decisions or the approval of new politicians. It could block poorly considered laws or prevent unfit leaders from being elected. These councils could also disqualify politicians before elections or rank them. One benefit of this system is that it wouldn’t create inequality among voters. However, challenges remain—citizens might not trust such a council’s decisions, or might feel it isn’t democratic enough. Still, this model would resemble existing practices, like the Finnish Constitutional Law Committee or constitutional courts in many countries. The difference is that an epistocratic council would go beyond legal interpretation and assess decisions more broadly.
A possible solution to issues related to citizens’ roles in democracy could be to offer genuine opportunities to those willing and interested in participating, while reducing the role and influence of passive citizens. Perhaps the goal should be a genuinely politically inclusive society—beyond just a democratic one—where everyone could participate in politics, but with certain conditions. Modern democracies have often prioritized individual freedom over reason and responsibility.
Epistocracy’s proponents have tried to reassure democracy’s defenders by saying they only want to minimize democracy’s flaws. They argue that, as in all other areas of life and society, we should also want competent decision-makers in politics. Universal suffrage—though the subject of reform proposals by epistocrats—is so deeply entrenched that changing it would be difficult. Informed citizens might view such reforms as immoral, while uninformed ones could take them as personal insults. Voting rights are also a key source of legitimacy, as previously discussed. For that reason, perhaps the only truly realistic reform among those discussed would be tests for candidates seeking political office.
Currently, the influence of a single vote is minimal—virtually nonexistent. Thus, the role of organizations or activism could be strengthened as an additional way to make an impact. This should also apply globally. More people should be able to share their perspectives and defend their interests—though within reasonable limits. At the same time, according to the principle of subsidiarity—decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible—people should be encouraged to influence local decisions more strongly. Local democracy in smaller communities might thus be one response to problems linked to large-scale democracies.
At the same time, the fact that many ordinary citizens know little about politics points toward a need for epistocracy—one that still guarantees individual rights and freedoms. Perhaps most people are politically passive—both in democracies and dictatorships—and are satisfied with the state allowing them to pursue better lives and providing the conditions to do so. This may be the key reason for liberal democracy’s effectiveness: it acknowledges the ordinary person’s societal nature. When this is not the case, citizens often become active—with potentially harmful consequences, as seen in Brexit. One lesson here is that a functioning society and citizens’ well-being must be guaranteed. When these basics are neglected, the results can be disastrous—as seen with Hitler’s rise to power, fueled by hyperinflation and widespread hardship. Societal changes—especially those perceived as harmful by ordinary citizens—must also be well-justified.
Citizen wellbeing and Stable Democracy
Solidarity and internal unity are crucial for a society’s stability; otherwise, the “losers” may rise up against democracy and elites. The challenge is that people’s opinions are rarely rational when they feel their position has deteriorated significantly. Therefore, every society must make a sincere effort to care for all its members. How people are treated and how well they do are central to evaluating democracy’s success. These issues also tie in with human rights and the welfare state.
What enables a functioning society—one that also makes informed decisions—is the vast amount of knowledge now available. Scientific knowledge should increasingly guide political decisions and fact-based public discourse. Above all, we must guarantee a functioning public sphere and open dialogue. A well-functioning democracy requires that the broader societal model supporting it also functions, as I discussed earlier. Without this, we may end up with voters choosing incapable leaders—those who rise to power through populism. The people’s role in democracies may thus be more important in removing leaders or blocking further mandates than in selecting them—and in this, they could work alongside an epistocratic council. In its most stripped-down form, democracy might simply mean guaranteeing citizens all the rights currently ensured in liberal democracies—and defending them through action.
Investing in education would also improve democracy. Other similar areas—though sometimes overlooked due to lacking immediate economic impact—have favorable long-term effects on societal well-being and must be supported. Strengthening democracy improves both the functioning of society and individual well-being—and vice versa. This reveals the potential for both a positive and negative spiral. The principles tied to promoting, safeguarding, and strengthening democracy could greatly benefit the global south and contribute to sustainable development there. Inclusive political institutions—open to all—should also be part of this.
Genuine deliberation would also be valuable. Face-to-face interaction reduces polarization. Groups of people often hold reasonable opinions when given accurate background information and the opportunity for dialogue. Regardless of other reforms, this must be promoted. At the same time, many opinions are deeply rooted in personal attitudes—shaped by religion, values, or experience—and may not be easily changed, even when alternatives are clearly better supported. Citizens may be at their best when deciding on matters in which they have no strong personal interest.
When thinking about the future, a pessimistic view might suggest it’s only a matter of time before populists gain more and stronger positions of power—in Europe and elsewhere. For this reason, reforms that improve current models must be seriously considered. In democracy so far, the people’s most important role has been to choose a suitable leader—but this choice must not allow glaring mistakes. To preserve democracy, we must also consider how to improve and refine it. A universal basic income—as we have discussed before—could also strengthen democracy by increasing individual well-being and reducing polarization. When analyzing society, it’s essential to remember that everything is connected. Issues must be examined holistically, and the effects of individual changes viewed from many perspectives. This is also the perspective of our association—we seek to explore broadly how the state of the world could be improved.
Finally, it must be emphasized that democracy-enhancing and democracy-developing reforms should be implemented in a growing number of countries around the world. This could include globally defined core values or components of democracy that may not be altered or violated. These would relate above all to the values underlying democracy. There may even be a need for a global constitution. Although democratizing global politics and international institutions may be difficult, we should at least ensure that their actors are chosen in democratically sustainable ways—and that they operate in accordance with democratic ideals and requirements. Democracy’s challenge lies in its high and diverse demands. Yet it remains a societal model worth striving for—especially when its current problems are addressed. Democracy is likely the best possible model for organizing the world, but its implementation requires constant effort and commitment. Democracy is above all a broad, multifaceted societal form that never reaches a final endpoint—it is a process whose development must be continuously attended to.
Sources:
Brennan, J. (2017) Against democracy / Jason Brennan ; with a new preface by the author. [Online]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Stenbäck, P. & Korvela, P.-E. (2019)
Demokratia on pelastettava / Pär Stenbäck ; suomentanut Paul-Erik Korvela. Jyväskylä: Docendo.
