René Guénon's Critique of Democracy

And the folly of the modern Right.

René Guénon, the 20th century Traditionalist thinker, had this to say about democracy in his 1927 book The Crisis of the Modern World:

If the word ‘democracy’ is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence—in our time or any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be ‘in act’ and ‘in potency’ at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretentions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility.¹

Today, it is becoming easier and easier to see modern liberal democracy for the farce that it is. Both Right and Left seem to agree that there are powerful figures in charge who rule the people and who do not really have our best interests in mind. Of course, the Left does not even realize that it is they who are in power, since the Left must always portray and understand itself as the “oppressed” class even if it has a death grip on nearly every sector of society. The Right, on the other hand, has quickly come to realize that it does not hold institutional or elite power and that the mechanisms of the State are actively being employed to suppress Right-wing politicians, pundits, and activists. Even otherwise normal people have come under attack by the FBI for being pro-life or posting memes.² Furthermore, the Right holds no significant power in major non-governmental institutions like the Media, Hollywood, the Universities and Public Schools, and even many of the major Churches.

This has led to considerable doubt as to whether or not we are living in a democracy. Populists seize on this opportunity and promise to return power to “the people.” By our estimation, the mainstream conservative view seems to be that we live under some sort of oligarchy and are ruled by elites who do not have our interests in mind and who keep power from us. Actually, nearly everyone from mainstream conservatives to the most radical elements seem to be in agreement that the government does not belong to “the people.”

The response by mainstream conservatives tends to be that we ought to somehow or another get rid of these elites and return power to the people. In other words, we just need to do democracy harder. The complaint is chiefly that the Left has cheated, that it has violated sacred democratic principles, and that the existence of an elite who exert profound influence on the government and the culture is a fluke of the system to be corrected, not an unavoidable and inherent fact in all societies. In other words, the Right falls back on classic liberal democratic, egalitarian arguments when confronting the Left today.

There are several issues with this. First of all, the conservative insistence on returning power to the people or getting rid of the influence of the powerful is a delusion. The existence of an elite or of a “ruling class” is just the reality of politics and social organization. Not a single system anywhere has or can avoid this. In Schmittian terms, we could say that there is always a Sovereign who has the power to decide.³ Liberal democracy just clouds this reality, which is a serious problem. It gives the impression of collective power and responsibility. See, people think that in democracy it is the people who are in charge, and that those whom they elect to represent them are ultimately accountable both to their electorate and to the laws. This is a farce, and you must accept it. Laws can be changed, and they are not changed by “the people” broadly speaking. They are changed by “lawmakers.” It is curious that we call our politicians “lawmakers” but continue to operate under the assumption that they are the ones accountable to the law and to us, the real lawmakers. We admit the power to change the law lies outside us in our own language! We also recognize that our officials have the power to suspend laws, even if we the people do not assent first. A perfect example of the power to suspend the law was experienced by the whole world in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The government simply declared a State of Emergency, thereby giving itself near unlimited power. It imposed rules that carried punishments without actually creating laws. Moreover, the people had no say in how the government responded to the pandemic. The people were never consulted, there were no ballot measures, and there were no real options for legal recourse. Pandemic response strategies and measures were decided entirely by a select few bureaucrats, all within the bounds of liberal democracy.

Democracy, though, remains intact despite these events. It is business as usual. Sure, conservatives were—and continue to be—angry about the pandemic measures, but ultimately the government and the people in control got away with it and have not been held accountable for their supposed violations of liberal democratic principles. Moreover, we have now witnessed the justice system being weaponized against conservatives in the US and abroad for the purposes of suppression. The most glaring example of this is how the US Department of Justice, FBI, and various state courts have rabidly pursued criminal charges of former President Donald Trump, not to mention imposing harsh penalties on as many of Trump’s allies as possible, even his lawyers.

This is not even to mention all those ways in which our democracy is influenced by money and powerful actors. Global finance, the mainstream media, academia, NGOs, PACs and Super PACS, corporations, Hollywood, the entertainment industry, and even individual people all have a great deal of influence not only on our government, but on us as well. They sway public opinion and put pressure on public officials. It is no joke that politicians are bought and paid for. The delusion is that it is just the politicians who fall under this influence.

Guénon says as much:

It was to create [the illusion of self-governance] that ‘universal suffrage’ was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction.

It would be foolish to suggest that the people are not swayed immensely by outside actors. The truth is that people are fickle and easily persuaded. If their favorite TV character says it, they are going to be more inclined to agree. If the media blasts it 24/7, they are going to be more likely to accept it. If the schools teach it, their kids will come home parroting the latest talking points. If all the advertisements use 75% minorities, you may come under the crazy impression that minorities are actually the majority.⁴ If a person’s favorite influencer says it, it automatically gains credibility. The influence of the news media and of journalists is perhaps the vilest, since it is they who control the narrative and the flow of information on a mass scale. Yes, social media has somewhat changed this, but for now the media continues to have a tremendous influence on how the public perceives a situation, whether by reporting one way or another about something or not reporting about it at all.

With that being said, let us recall the ending of the first paragraph again:

the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility.

You see, the problem is not that democracy has been violated and we just need to do democracy harder this time. The problem is not that Biden or the Democrats or whoever have operated outside the bounds of liberal democracy: the problem is that democracy as we define and understand it is a fantasy, and often a pacifier used by those with power to give citizens the impression that they are the ones in control, even when they come to realize this isn’t the case. Again, let us say, democracy as we understand it is a fantasy. Yes, there are elections where people vote and the politicians they “want” win (though, after 2020, this may not be an entirely safe assumption to make) but this does not ever seem to satisfy even the winning mass of people. Ask any voter whether the candidates on the ballot really represent their views or whether they really trust the candidate, and you will likely be told that neither candidate really represents their views, but that it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Isn’t that odd? Despite the people’s supposed power, they seem to end up with people who they do not feel properly represent them.

Of course, this is not to say democracy is entirely fake. Democracy as understood by Plato and Aristotle is very much real. Republican government is real. But liberal democracy, as we understand it, is a self-contradictory fantasy. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people simply doesn’t exist as promised.

Do not take this to mean that everything is just a big delusion, and that we are actually being controlled entirely by some shadowy elite. This too is a fantasy. Inasmuch as it is the dominant method of political organization around the world today, liberal democracy is very much real; and while the masses are certainly able to be formed and led like sheep to the slaughter, they do actually have power in and of themselves since the liberal democratic method gives it to them. If they didn’t, then billions wouldn’t be spent on influencing them to vote one way or another. Even though power can be exercised without popular mandate, the modern mindset and system requires at least the illusion of popular consent, though real mass approval is preferred. Even today’s elite still operate with certain egalitarian and majoritarian assumptions or must appear to do so. Furthermore, it is true that powerful people exist and that the masses are malleable, but this does not mean we have a real aristocracy in any sense of the word. Anyone who tries to tell you this is lying. In fact, we do not have a true “elite class” as that would be understood historically. Guénon makes this point further along in the book—that is, that democracy negates the idea of an elite. That is because everyone has the potential to cast a vote of equal value. Guénon observes:

the guiding function exercised by a true elite, and its very existence—since of necessity it plays this role if it exists at all—is utterly incompatible with the egalitarian conception, and therefore with the negation of all hierarchy; the very foundation of the democratic idea is the supposition that one individual is as good as another, simple because they are equal numerically and in spite of the fact that they can never be equal in any other way. A true elite, as we have already said, can only be an intellectual one; and that is why democracy can arise only where pure intellectuality no longer exists, as is the case in the modern world. However, since equality is in fact impossible, and since, despite all efforts toward leveling, the differences between one man and another cannot in practice be entirely suppressed, men have been brought, by a curious illogic, to invent false elites—of several kinds moreover—that claim to take the place of the one true elite; and contingent points of superiority, always of a purely material order. This is obvious from the fact that the social distinction that counts most in the present state of things is that based on wealth, that is to say on a purely outward superiority of an exclusively quantitative order, the only superiority in fact that is consistent with democracy, based as it is on the same point of view.

There is another oversight of the mainstream Right to be mentioned. This is that conservatives imagine a scenario in which the majority can simply guide the State to a better situation. They continue to hold on to the idea that everyone deserves a voice; they simply wish to increase the number of voices with whom they agree. Sometimes this belief is so strong that they invent the idea of a "silent majority” wherein their views are actually held by this silent majority. By this contrived idea they maintain that their values and policies are validated and legitimate and in fact have the support of the people even when this is clearly not the case. But the key here is that even conservatives must comfort themselves by quantitative thinking. They cannot conceive of a scenario in which the minority actually ought to rule over the majority, or where “the people” ought not to be given power. The conservative need for a conception of the silent majority comes from their inability to shake off modern assumptions. Conservatives today cling to democracy in part because they are not allowed to advocate for anything different, and also because they simply cannot shake their modernism. Their “conservatism” is maybe a decade or two old, in terms of what it seeks to “conserve.” This is evident by recent rhetoric portraying the 00s as a bright and good time. But let us not dwell on that point any further.

Returning to the question of quantity, equality, and democracy, we must repudiate the idea that everyone deserves an equal say in government. Like Guénon says, a false elite does exist, mainly those with a lot of money and material control, and they do exercise a great amount of influence. However, democracy really does allow everyone to have an equal vote (when it functions as intended/promised), and this prevents the existence of a true elite. This idea of everyone having an equal vote is one of the fundamental issues with democracy, according to Guénon:

the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence, whether this be due to lack of intelligence or to ignorance pure and simple; certain observations of ‘mass psychology’ might be quoted here, in particular the widely known fact that the aggregate of mental reactions among the component individuals of a crowd crystallizes into a sort of general psychosis whose level is not merely that of the average, but actually that of the lowest elements present.

Let us just call it like it is here: does anyone really think the 18-year-olds graduating public high school right now, by and large, actually deserve to have any influence on the State? Does anyone think the bum who shoots up heroin and has done nothing good for the community deserves the same vote as the upstanding family man? Seriously. Does anyone look around Walmart and think, “Ah yes, a bastion of virtuous voters who can cast an informed vote!” Does anyone really believe that, for instance, the majority of TikTok users really deserve the vote? We will let you come to your own conclusions here. Deep down, everyone agrees that some people simply cannot be allowed a say, and this is actually reflected by certain prohibitions on voting such as age and criminal status. Such prohibitions are increasingly coming under attack though because ultimately, they cannot be justified by liberal democratic values. Who is to say a 16 or even 14-year-old cannot vote, especially when they must pay taxes if they work? Who is to say a criminal cannot vote, even while in prison?

Guénon’s critique is deeper than this, however. Absolutely, the masses are ignorant and often downright foolish, but this is not the root of the issue. The truth is that modern men have a faulty metaphysics, or lack thereof. Democracy is built upon this terrible idea that Guénon calls “multiplicity:”

Let us probe still more deeply into the question: what is the law of the greatest number which modern governments invoke and in which they claim to find their sole justification? It is simply the law of matter and brute force, the same law by which a mass, carried down by its weight, crushes everything that lies in its tracks. It is precisely here that we find the point of junction of the democratic conception and materialism, and here also is to be found the reason why this conception is so firmly rooted in the present-day mentality. By this means, the normal order of things is completely reversed and the supremacy of multiplicity as such is upheld, a supremacy that actually exists only in the material world; in the spiritual world, on the other hand—and more clearly still in the universal order—it is unity that is at the summit of the hierarchy, since unity is the principle out of which all multiplicity arises…Multiplicity, considered apart from its principle, and therefore as no longer capable of being reduced to unity, takes the form in the social realm of a community conceived only as the arithmetical sum of its component individuals; in fact, a community is no more than this, once it has ceased to be attached to any principle superior to these individuals. The law of such a community is literally that of the greatest number, and it is on this that the democratic idea is based.

We should not be surprised when this conception of reality and of right infects all realms of society, including our morals and values, our common history, our customs, etc. The democratic principle is all consuming. It is also ever-changing. Sometimes it changes year by year. Sometimes decade by decade. But a world where multiplicity reigns is a world in flux. It is a chaotic place where nothing is certain. One day your values are common sense and shared by the majority, the next they are only held by the backwards and ignorant. One day the story of your national mythology that you were told since you were a small child is upended by the new national mythology, which actually denounces the mythology you grew up with as bigoted and racist. One day it is obvious to everyone what a woman is, and the next, well, see for yourself.

Having said all this, let us return once more to the subject of elites, populism, and the mainstream conservative programme. Conservatives still wish to maintain rule of the rabble; they simply wish for the rabble to move Right. Thus, when the rabble does move Right, they see it as some great victory when, in reality, it can be undone in two years’ time. The hope of some on the Right today seems to be that if they could just win the next election big enough, they could finally turn things around. We are sorry to say that this is completely backwards. As long as the Right continues to buy into democratic multiplicity and egalitarianism, it will merely be another side of the same coin as the Left. This is why so many times conservatives appear to be nothing more than a sort of lagging Left, behind the progressive position by about 10 years and sometimes even less.

The implications of these things are clear: so long as the Right continues to begin its political and philosophical efforts with explicitly liberal, democratic, egalitarian, and majoritarian assumptions, it will fail.

it might be said that the modern world protects itself by its very dispersion, from which even its adversaries do not succeed in escaping. This will continue to be the case as long as the latter keep to the ‘profane’ ground on which the modern mentality enjoys an obvious advantage, as this is its proper and exclusive province; and, as a matter of fact, their remaining on this ground shows that, despite all appearances, this mentality still has a very strong hold on them. It is for this reason that so many people, although moved by undeniably good intentions, are unable to understand that a beginning can be made only from principles, and persist in frittering away their energies in some relative sphere, social or otherwise, in which such conditions, nothing real or durable can ever be accomplished.

To conclude, we have established several things. One is that democracy is an illusion but a very powerful one; it simultaneously negates any existence of a true elite while still allowing small groups to have oversized power and influence. It also gives people a sort of opioid that comforts them, giving them the impression that they are ultimately in charge. Finally, it is rule by the lowest common denominator and though the masses are easily manipulated, they are nevertheless a dangerous force, due to the idea of multiplicity giving power to an ignorant and foolish majority. We also know, as stated already, that no true elite exists, and it would be improper to speak of any sort of elite class at least in the real sense of the term. We have also established that the present position that the Right operates by is confused and self-defeating. Modernity and the progressives cannot be meaningfully opposed so long as the Right holds on to egalitarianism, democratic theory, populism, and multiplicity. Only temporary and shaky victories can be won this way. Furthermore, beyond political matters, the Right holding on to these things puts all they value in danger, since ultimately all things are judged by the standard of whether or not it is held by the majority.

So, what ought the Right do, it might be asked. Well, the simple answer is that it must abandon modernity and embrace Tradition, and we do not take “tradition” to mean customs and such, but a real way of Being that has been lost today and may only exist among a select few. No, we mean something quite different. Julius Evola puts it very succinctly in Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for Aristocrats of the Soul. In fact, he comments that his definition is basically that of René Guénon's. It is as follows:

…a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above. Beyond the variety of historical forms, there has existed an essentially identical and constant world of Tradition.

Until the Right understands and embraces Tradition properly speaking, it will be a redundant and ultimately futile movement that does next to nothing to oppose the terrible destruction being wrought by modern man and especially the Left.

1. Buy here: The Crisis of the Modern World

2. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-justice-department-twist-federal-law-arrest-charge-pro-life

3. You can read more about Schmitt’s concept here: https://thenewutopian.com/2022/11/02/understanding-carl-schmitts-political-theology/

4. As it turns out, Americans are incredibly stupid, and overinflate the sizes of a ton of minority groups to a genuinely insane degree. I suspect this is largely due to the way that media overrepresents minorities, whether it be in ads, shows, movies, etc. Every now and then I have the displeasure of seeing ads of TV, and they always have tons of non-whites and non-Christians, to the point that you’d think there were as many black people as white people in America. Source.