Although democracies, in varying states of evolutionary flux, struggle with several challenges, from widening socio-economic inequity to new forms of radicalism, the Churchillian definition may still be relevant, that “democracy is the worst system except for all the others”, says Cynthia Fleury, prominent French philosopher, psychoanalyst and author.
Ms. Fleury, professor holder of the “Humanities and health” chair of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris, was recently at the Alliance Francaise in Puducherry as part of a lecture tour covering select cities in India, to share from her research and writings that focus on reformative tools of democratic regulation, at the level of institutions and citizens, to bridge the gap between democratic principles and practices.
In an e-mail interview with The Hindu, Ms. Fluery states that while some democracies may be tempted to lean the authoritarian way, the success and the value of democracy greatly hinge on freedom of opinion and free political opposition — where criticism becomes a form of constructive feedback that is purposed to improve the system.
Her book, “Les Irremplaçables” (The Irreplaceables), essentially makes the case that the rule of law is vacuous without the indispensability of individual subject, and that, democracy itself would be a void without the sustainability of free subjects, the engagement of individuals, or their determination to protect its durability. It is a conception of democracy, as a continuous experiment, to be reformed, reinforced and made more participatory by the intelligence that the rule of law itself has made possible — an emancipatory politics based on the “irreplaceability” of subjects and their individuation, rather than individualism.
Ms. Fleury also touches on the notion of “democratic entropy”, a phenomenon seen by 19th century French political philosopher-historian Alexis de Tocqueville, where democratic principles are stretched to their extreme in practice. To fight against democratic entropy, it is imperative to be invested in the conditions of possibility of emergence of emancipation, mainly in education and care, says Ms. Fleury, who is also associate professor at the Ecole des Mines (PSL/Mines-ParisTech) and holder of the Philosophy chair of the GHU Paris Psychiatry and Neurosciences.
Excerpts from the interview:
How do you see the state of democracies in the world today?
A large number of democracies face internal problems: increasing socio-economic inequalities, inability to properly integrate immigrant populations, a reinforced community phenomenon, all kinds of new radicalism, a feeling of deep downgrading on the part of the middle classes, resentment on the part of individuals, and exacerbated individualism.
Is a “liberal democracy” a bit of an oxymoron in this day and age, given what some view, as creeping authoritarianism and curtailment of civil liberties in the way governments handle dissent/popular protests?
In a globalised world where political problems are cross-border, democracies have great difficulty in enforcing their very high social, economic and cultural standards. Authoritarian states that are failing in terms of human rights compete with them in an unfair, and unfortunately, very effective way.
At the same time, the democracies themselves are tempted by the authoritarian whiff and the trivialisation of states of exception. It is obvious that what makes the success and the value of democracy, namely the freedom of opinion, the possibility of criticism, and free political opposition, favour the feeling of deception and resentment. However, we are not going to prohibit this in any way, but on the contrary see how this “criticism” makes it possible to intelligently improve the system.
What are the vulnerabilities peculiar to a democratic system? From Aristotle and Plato to thinkers like Tocqueville have sounded a cautionary note... there is also Robert Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” that suggests that all forms of organisation, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible....
There are a number of threats to democracy: the tyranny of the majority, the shortcomings of political representation, the deregulation of the economy, the secession of the elites, the downgrading of the middle classes, the instrumentalisation of individual and public freedoms by populist systems, etc.
Could you elaborate on the notion of democratic entropy?
The notion of democratic entropy came to me to describe the structural excesses of democracy. The phenomenon had been well seen by Tocqueville, when he showed that principles in a democracy become passions: the principle of freedom, which is a principle of self-limitation, becomes a passion for omnipotence, for the absence of constraint; the principle of equality becomes the passion of egalitarianism; the principle of individuation becomes the passion of individualism. In fact, to fight against democratic entropy, it is always necessary to be interested in the conditions of possibility of emergence of emancipation, that is to say mainly in education and care, in a very general way.
But then, an imperfect democracy still is the best shot at engendering civil liberties, economic parity and social justice?
The Churchillian definition of democracy is still relevant, namely, that democracy is the worst system except for all the others. Although imperfect, the rule of law at least makes it possible to produce effective protest tools, and to endanger people’s lives less. Democracy allows not social justice, but at least the fight for social justice.
Is technology, particularly the omnipresence of social media, a promoter or distorter of democracy when it becomes an enabling agent of, say, group-think and echo chambers that stifle critical thought, polarisation, or cancel culture that is, perhaps, a new form of the tyranny of the majority?
Today’s technologies are mainly “panoptic”, they monitor us more than they give us new capacities. And virality is essentially instrumentalised by radicalised minorities, which endangers the quality of public space.
What was the motivation for setting up the first research chair in philosophy at Hôtel-Dieu hospital in Paris (that is currently allied with the GHU-Paris, Psychiatry and Neurosciences)?
The chair of philosophy at the hospital is a chair of teaching, research and above all of experimentation. It is at the service of other hospital departments to co-design with them protocols, prototypes, all kinds of solutions, where the medical humanities are essential. We do not cure diseases. We treat sick people, which is very different. The nursing function belongs to everyone and not only to doctors. Our work at the chair is to empower the patient and the healthcare teams. Today, the chair is linked to the Paris Hospital Group Psychiatry and Neurosciences.
How has technology generally impacted healthcare... while tech advancements have undeniably helped improve diagnosis and cure, has it also led to de-humanisation of clinical practice and raised costs?
Technology is essential in care if it remains “human”, and does not reinforce pre-existing vulnerabilities or replace the human. Technology must be at the service of humans.
Isn’t there an inherent conflict between the profit motive in private healthcare and medical ethics? How do we resolve this divergence... and is this where the concept of the commons for a range of basic citizen services becomes very important?
There are non-exclusively market goods, and health, like education, is one of them. It is for this reason that we must fight ultra-managerial approaches that concern the health of individuals and populations. And the “commons” approach, “common goods” allows us to better protect this health that we share.
Published - November 11, 2022 06:35 pm IST
