”Fragments of power: What will democracy do with its victory?”
Tampere Lecture 16.9. 2013
Matti Apunen
Introduction
Democracy is in crisis. It is not a sudden crisis, caused by authoritarian pressure, strong political leaders
and the power of large global corporations. We have more faith than ever in democracy, and in the last
50 years democracy has become the normative political choice. But at the same time, democracy is in
difficulty, because it seems it does not know what to do with its victory. Democracy has won in Europe,
but at the same time its subjects are unsatisfied with democracy and are seeking new forms for it.
Shortcuts to democracy are sought intensely as a solution to the lack of credibility that representative
democracy has for its citizens. By this lack of credibility I mean that citizens are passive, not inclined to
vote, thus weakening the legitimacy of political decisions. At the same time, people consider politicians
to be untrustworthy; Finnish polls on the respectability of particular vocations repeatedly rank
politicians at the bottom. Similar results are probably easy to find elsewhere as well.
These shortcuts are single issue tickets and various demands for ”direct democracy”. I claim neither is a
solution to the original problem. Direct democracy is rarely constructive and conciliatory. The demand
for direct democracy is more concerned with the idea of increasing the chances to say “no”, in a sense
the expansion of an individual’s veto.
A real solution is possible, and you will have to wait for it until the end of this presentation. The real
solution is the emphasis of virtue, the strengthening of citizenship, better freedom of choice, and the
active possibility of participating in making decisions which concern one’s own life.
Symptoms of paralysis
We demanded more democracy and have received more democracy. The amount of political elections
has grown in the last 50 years, but at the same time ever more democracies suffer from deficient
implementation.
The United States is politically paralyzed. Europe cannot resolve its core problems. Even progressive
solutions that benefit everyone cannot proceed. We know well that, for example, the creation of a
digital European single market would considerably ease the life of citizens and companies. In addition it
would provide GDP growth of the same level of magnitude as the creation of the single market in the
1990s. Nevertheless, the digital internal market does not progress, the project has not even properly
begun.
Finland is paralyzed. Decisions that are unavoidable, and ultimately known to be inevitable, on the
extension of working careers are postponed, and the government will not reveal the methods and
details, only some ambiguous ”intent”. These declarations of intent are like the alcoholic’s renewed
promises of abstinence- maybe not today, but by 2017 I will be in much better shape. My problem is
under control!
The most serious situation is of course in the United States, where the only appropriate expression to
describe the situation between the democrats and the republicans is a dead end, but some European
states are not much better. In Italy, the formation of a government is notoriously difficult, which is not
simply a passing disorder (and I fear this disorder will affect Finland in April 2013, when the next
parliamentary election will be held. In 2010-11, Belgium survived - a questionable world record of - 541
days without a government, and government was ultimately formed not the result of a coming to senses
but the fear that the country’s credit rating would be dropped.
Incidentally, this is the same reason which ultimately drove the Finnish government to promise its
economic diet a few weeks ago.
Democracy has completely new tools. Social media made us all content-producers and created further
pressure on those in power. “There is no democracy without Twitter”, Turkish demonstrators enthused
in June 2013. The mainstream media was seen to be so corrupted that it could not be entrusted with the
transmission of information. The insurrections during the so-called Arab Spring were also attributed as
achievements of social media, even though for example research indicates that in Egypt social media
was ultimately used by a relatively small group of Egyptians.
But the change is undisputed. Citizens demand to be directly involved in decision-making, and this is not
a friendly request but an unconditional demand. This demand also concerns the media, as everyone
who has worked there in recent years knows. People consider that they own the media, even if they do
not own shares or even pay a subscription fee, and they ask where the company’s general meetings are
held so that they might express themselves directly.
We have received more democracy, but power is more fragile. Incumbent governments have lost
elections in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, The Netherlands,
Denmark, Latvia and of course in Finland (2011). They retained their power only in Poland, Estonia and
Sweden.
The people also want their say about companies. Occupy Wall Street and its sister movements have so
far had few effects, but their signal is hard to bypass. And as unusual as it sounds, power is thinner even
in large corporations. In 2011 14,1% of the CEOs of global corporations were forced to leave as Moisés
Naím demonstrates in his book The End of Power.
Shortcuts to power
Politics is increasingly led by opinion polls. Citizens’ initiatives and various forms of direct and “easy”
democracy are sought to correct the defects of democracy. We believe that if the campaign bus came to
the people, we could remedy the low voting rate. And if we had more forms of direct democracy, we
would fix the quality of politics and the cynicism and dissatisfaction of citizens.
The campaign bus will not resolve passivity. Direct popular elections are unfortunately not the solution
to the quality conundrum in politics.
Look at California. The wealthy state of California has been governed by direct referenda for decades.
The outcome has often been absurd: the same group of voters can simultaneously demand better public
services and substantially lower taxes. The paradox is not impossible, if it is premised on increasing
public sector productivity, but I seriously doubt that this was foremost in the mind of the Californian
electorate when it made its choices on the ticket.
The idea of the citizen initiative is popular in Finland. 50 000 names are enough to register the initiative
on the parliamentary agenda. So what is the problem, if this will provide a parallel route for proposing
legislative changes?
The problem is that the citizen initiative raises strong expectations of a positive reaction among the
activists. They usually overestimate the political appeal of their proposal, because they share the values
of the other signatories, or extrapolate a group of likes on Facebook to be a majority of the people. If a
citizens’ initiative is rebuffed in parliament, the consequence is a strong political frustration and
dissatisfaction. Politics is considered dirtier than before, a fixed match rather than the art of
compromises for which it was created.
Behind the citizen initiative there lies an understanding that democracy in its present form is too slow,
and good intentions are entitled to use a fast lane. It is a kind of societal car pool lane, where a group of
citizens travelling in the same direction may overtake others who wait in the adjacent lane with their
own, individual woes.
Another popular shortcut is civil disobedience.
This concerns a “just” purpose after which refusal or even active resistance can become acceptable or
even ideal. Civil disobedience is a special exception for political activity in the otherwise very strict
requirement of legality. We consider that a “strong moral reason” justifies ignoring the law, but even in
this requirement we are not consistent.
We understand, for example, civil disobedience in the name of environmental protection, but we
condemn civil disobedience for religious reasons – for example in the case where a nurse refuses to
perform an abortion on the basis of his own ethics.
The Finnish Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen, who represents the Christian Democrats and is a practicing
Christian, stated in a speech this summer that in some circumstances morals can be above the law. She
meant this abortion issue in particular. Räsänen received a ferocious torrent of objections that
demanded her apology, resignation, or various combinations including these.
The discussion was striking, in that the same people who most intensely criticized Minister Räsänen for
bypassing the law, nevertheless accept civil disobedience in another context without question.
Inconsistent? Not according to Räsänen’s critics.
What about the representatives of the majority, groups in a good economic position – for example
people like me – are we entitled to civil disobedience? Or is civil disobedience reserved only for a
mechanism to distribute power, like progressive taxation, where marginal groups can balance the
uneven scales of power? If we accept this principle, it would be reasonable to know the baseline of this
equalizing mechanism, below which civil disobedience is acceptable.
The ultimate, in itself reasonable basic question concerning participation is: why participate in a slow
and difficult process, if a faster alternative exists? The political and preparatory process subjects one to
unpleasant counterarguments and, occasionally, even plausible arguments. Why go through the trouble,
if there is the possibility of a last-minute objection, the possibility of an appeal or a veto?
Finnish society has constructed a great number of entrenched opportunities to say no, and very few
opportunities to say yes. Therefore single-issue movements have received a disproportionate amount of
power under the Finnish doctrine on the separation of powers, where Montesquieu’s traditional
elements have been strengthened by further branches of government (the parties to the so-called
tripartite labor negotiating system, activism).
Single issue movements are not heroic resistance, they are often political luxuries. Single issue
movements can be concerned with only one thing at a time. They are easy to join, and when the time
comes, easy to leave.
They gain easy publicity, because the media is directed by sentimentalism, thought according to which
the view of the person who has suffered the most is the most sincere. This is why the media prefers to
seek suffering rather than the overall picture. This is why the victim of a crime momentarily becomes an
expert on criminal policy, whose opinion is not seen in a critical light. Do not misunderstand me: these
people must of course have their say. I appreciate the achievements of the environmental movement in
raising environmental awareness, but technology deserves equal recognition for improving the quality
of the environment.
In the present political discourse the burden of proof is always on he who is in charge of the whole. The
dire lack of accommodation in the city is not at all as significant a matter from the sentimental
perspective as the view from one resident’s home which is ruined by the building erected on the
adjacent property.
The equivalent of single issue movements in officialdom are sector officials.
A typical example of a sector official is the data protection supervisor, whose function is primarily to be
concerned about the maximal data protection of citizens. The human or economic externalities of a data
protection decision are secondary questions from the perspective of the sector official. The transfer of
patient data from the attending physician to another health organization is not possible without the
patient’s consent, even if the patient is incapable of granting consent, and the transfer of data would
save her own life.
Many seem to believe that the last knights in shining armor in today’s ”spoiled” politics are NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), independent lobbying and aid organizations. NGOs are not seen to have
ties to state politics and can therefore work without political baggage.
But note that NGOs also have target results. The NGO seeks direct funding from people, or as often is
the case, institutional helpers. An NGO must demonstrate to its funders that the activity has outcomes.
It must therefore demonstrate that the problem exists and even that it is growing or worsening, and the
NGO assures that only it can provide a humane solution. A humane solution is quite apart from a costeffective or the best solution in terms of effectiveness. A humane solution is, hmm, humane, in other
words, full of good intentions. In addition it is natural that when engaging in direct fundraising the NGO
leans towards those currents, which are the most popular and politically correct.
All in all, customized organizations with low hierarchies succeed in a fragmented political culture. This is
why populist parties are successful in Europe, or so-called antithetical political parties, such as the pirate
parties. In some places they can achieve significant proportions of the vote, among others in Germany
and Sweden, with an agenda that is a combination of the broad ideal of e-democracy and cliquish
concerns. According to the latest information the German Pirate Party is nevertheless on the brink of
disintegrating into internal disagreements. The party with the lowest hierarchy sunk into internal chaos,
name-calling and personal disputes in record time.
”Patronize me!”
Political passiveness is not a consequence of the difficulty of voting. The reasons are much broader and
they run much deeper.
We will gladly subject our case to norms and officials. To offset high taxes we transfer responsibility for
our life to society. Ever smaller matters and more subjective rights are dealt with by laws, and the
sphere of decisions concerning natural life shrinks. We do not trust the ability of people or communities
to make decisions which concern them. Instead we believe, incredibly, that people can find and elect
those superhuman individuals who can also decide for others.
Our civitas shrinks, and with the proliferation of norms we are more administrative subjects, and less
independent, critical, cooperative citizens.
Well-intentioned norms make us passive and introverted. Whatever happens within sight or earshot, we
do not grapple with it but speed up and leave the police, fire department, or social services to deal with
the problem.
If we want laws to limit bad behavior but the norm contained in legislation is unsuccessful, we soon
have on our hands three problems instead of one. The pre-existing, undesirable activity continues
somewhat like before. In addition, we must monitor the new norm, which people clearly have no wish
to obey. And as the sum of these we become less law-abiding.
”If you make ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law”, as Winston Churchill expertly
summarized the matter.
After the war Finns have issued not ten thousand, but 75 000 laws and regulations. 1600 are created
annually. We replace ordinary social relations with norms.
The flood of norms creates an institutional pressure for passivity. It is finally legitimated by research and
publicity.
A watered down decision, or indecision, is easy to justify with research and reports. There is no
worldwide shortage of research data, mixed material, and at the worst the same data can dexterously
be used for two diametrically opposed purposes. If we demand nearly perfect certainty of the lack of
risk involved in an uncertain decision or a precise date when an economic solution will repay itself, it is
very difficult to find a decision-maker, who would take responsibility for the risks demonstrated by
research- but the same also concerns corporate decision-making.
Part of the picture is that we are surprisingly incapable of estimating the probability of risk, cannot
adequately perceive the proportion of a harmful substance contained in food or chemicals; the
difference between a million and a billion is hard for even the experienced and numerate.
In addition we avoid risks very asymmetrically, that is, in an inconsistent way and one which emphasizes
the uncertainty and the weakness of decision-making.
We grossly overestimate new risks and underestimate old risks, as Kevin Kelley writes in his excellent
book What Technology Wants (2010). Our tolerance for known, “old” risks, such as alcohol, is great. We
do not consider picking mushrooms or berries so risky that it should be regulated, even though the risk
of injury, getting lost, or picking the wrong mushroom is considerable when walking in the forest.
Almost everyone has personal experience of one of these.
Another form of asymmetry are approaches which I will call aversion of type one and two risk.
Type one risk means that we carefully look for the possible risks of a new food, medicine or technology –
health risks, security risks, and economic risks. We emphasize these, so the default is rejecting and
prohibiting a new approach.
Type two risk refers to those detriments, that are the consequence of prohibiting a new technology or
that we cannot enjoy its benefits.
The current political climate overemphasizes type one risk to near impossibility. If there is the smallest
chance of some detriment, a total ban is always the politically safer option. We fear the political
consequences when the risk is realized more than the unachieved benefits that result from the ban.
Type one risk aversion automatically narrows the opportunities for political activity. The political system
is gridlocked; decision-making is replaced by unending reports, profuse public discussion and the slow
dilution of the original goals. When the goals have been sufficiently diluted, there is no longer any need
for decision-making.
Towards a solution: Fixing shrinking citizenship
Dear audience,
I have tried to develop a thorough diagnosis for why the patient’s facilities are clearly diminished, his
appetite and his activity is weak. It is time to prescribe the medicine.
The deepest problem for western democracies is not that citizens do not have opportunities to
participate in political processes. The real problem is that people do not want to participate in proactive
decision-making closest to themselves, but are satisfied by decisions made elsewhere and their role is
reduced to protesting in elections or on the street.
I will call this problem “shrinking citizenship”. The term was coined by the former Governor of Indiana,
Mitch Daniels (governor from 2004 to 2012).
Shrinking citizenship means weakening criticality and – as observed – the tendency to externalize
responsibility. It means a weakening understanding of virtues as the foundation for fairness. It is typical
of shrinking citizenship to see fairness as a passive question of distributing wealth, a kind of apparatus
for equalization.
“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the
people, is a chimerical idea,” as the fourth president of the United States, James Madison, (1751-1836),
once declared.
In his book Keeping the Republic (2011) Mitch Daniels describes the Cinderella-story of his own state.
Indiana, with a population of Finland, heavy debts, and a deficit, transformed within four years into an
AAA –rated state with a surplus. Daniels conceived broad reforms for healthcare and education.
According to him their common denominator was that the system began to believe again in peoples’
ability to make decisions. “There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in
our own right”, he writes.
At the heart of Daniels’s political program was the idea that he should make his own role as governor as
small as possible. By the way, it is noteworthy that Indiana overwhelmingly selected the Republican
Daniels for a second term in 2008, even though at the same time the state turned to the Democrats and
Barak Obama for the presidential election.
Daniels wanted to return power to individual taxpayers and speed up public decision-making processes.
“You'd be amazed how much government you never miss,” he summarizes.
A central element of Daniels’s program was, among others, the personal health savings account for
public sector workers, variants of which are known elsewhere in the world. Without going into the
details of the accounting, the results speak for themselves. When state employees in Indiana
(voluntarily) joined the program, their health costs dropped 11 per cent compared with the estimate.
Preemptive medicine was clearly more popular than under the old insurance-based solution. In addition,
consumers used considerably more generic medicine than under the old system and sought competitive
prices for simple procedures.
Daniels had deeper motives than saving money: As he writes in his book, when a person takes
responsibility for himself and his family, he experiences dignity and satisfaction. This view is not contrary
to the Nordic welfare state or incompatible with the basic idea of the welfare state – if the basic ideas is
the welfare state as an active, two-way political system.
At the heart of Daniels’s idea is an expression whose political frequency has become distressingly low.
Scientific and political discussion defines it rather rarely. This expression is dignity, which I see, like Kant,
as an expression of free will and the initiative of an individual. Dignity is ultimately a person’s ability to
make his own choices.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In conclusion I would like to remind you of the first Tampere Lecture, held in this same building 12 years
ago. The lecture was given by a member of the Tampere Club, the American economist and Nobel prizewinner James Buchanan, whose speech was one of texts which has most profoundly influenced me.
Buchanan’s liberal message was ultimately extremely simple and at the same time invoked strong
obligations in its audience: We must believe in the possibilities of the individual, also when it feels
difficult or even impossible.
Thank you.
Translation: Samuli Miettinen, LLM