Mob Rule & Cancel Culture
The idea that a society should be governed in accordance with the will of the people dates back to sixth century BC in ancient Greece. From Socrates to Plato to Aristotle, Greek philosophers observed and discussed the notion of democracy and its place in civil society. Though opinions varied, the idea of having a democratic system of governance stems from the desire to governed by consent instead of tyranny, and it is for this reason that democracy is hailed as one of the key drivers of equality and liberty in the present day.
However, whether in the recent rise of populism, or through the ever-intolerant cancel culture, we appear to be sliding into a democratic crisis. Both movements take the idea that decision making by the will of the people is beneficial, to mean that any decision made by the people is right and absolute, irrespective of its repercussion. By disregarding the nuances of democracy, the complexities of governmental decision making and the importance of open discussion in a democratic state, both populism and cancel culture pose a threat to liberal society. In order to protect ourselves from this threat, we should remind ourselves of the reasons why we hold democracy in such high regard before allowing it to become the top trump of all other rhyme or reason.
Populism and the Will of the People
Populism seems to be one of the fasted growing buzzwords in politics. Though it is defined in the Oxford dictionary as ‘a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups’, consensus among political scientists is that the term is too ambiguous to follow any strict definition. Instead, many conversations around defining populism focus on ideation – aiming to define the movement by its driving ideas instead of in exact terms and requirements. This allows us to whittle populism down into several unifying principles, some of which are:
1. Anti-establishment sentiment with a polarization of the ‘corrupt’ elite and ‘pure’ people
2. An ability to rally large sections of the population over unifying causes
3. Strong messages and leaders, often enhanced through intelligent use of media.
On the Right, we have the likes of Donald Trump in America, Nigel Farage and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, and the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany. On the Left, Giuseppe Conte’s 5* movement in Spain, which focused on anti-austerity and ‘zero-cost politics’, and SYRIZA in Greece following the financial crisis. Though spread across various sections of politics, all movements share a sense of virtue in the people rising up against elitist or outsider groups.
On the face of it, the ability for the people to rise up against governments or institutions seen as failing them would seem in line with democracy. Democracy is often deemed valuable for its role in holding decision-makers accountable which furthers equality between governors and the governed. Yet when you look at populist movements throughout history, they frequently suffer at the hands of demagogues – leaders who harness easy-to-sell wants and desires over rational argument.
The threats posed by demagogues to democracy are not new in the literature. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates used the analogy of a doctor and a sweet shop owner, who both ran as candidates for an election. The sweet shop owner says of his rival “he hurts you… gives bitter syrups and pokes holes on you, cuts your skin and take your blood…He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will.” Meanwhile, what can the doctor say that would win votes? Claiming that they did what they did in your best interest would leave them unpopular at best. The sweet shop owner is the demagogue; the doctor loses the election.
Where Donald Trump can exclaim ‘Make America Great Again’ to mobilise the masses against immigration, Democrats, and the ‘corrupt media’, Spanish movement democracia real ya (“real democracy, now”) can bid the people to rise up against anti-austerity measures. However, the realities of implementation are often impractical in real world conditions. Just look at Trump’s claims of economic prosperity in his rise to power against increasing unemployment, an international trade deficit, and federal debt during his term. These powerful ideas and catchphrases attract voters, but does that necessarily mean that the leaders behind these ideas are the best ones to govern society? As Socrates claimed, we are at risk of choosing the sweet shop owner over the doctor, to the detriment of society.
Cancel Culture
It would be difficult to have missed the existence of the term cancel culture, but for those who have, it is a phenomenon that often presents itself in the form of online masses that band together to publicly call out behaviour that is seen as unacceptable. It refers to ‘a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles’, referencing the fact that cancelling can either stop at online accountability or go as far as having employers or brands end their relationship with the ‘cancelled’.
Some of the recent examples of cancel culture include the likes of Mason Greenwood, Johnny Depp, and J.K. Rowling who have found themselves shunned by the masses for engaging in ‘socially unacceptable’ behaviour. The likes of Mason Greenwood and Johnny Depp found themselves in controversy amidst claims of domestic abuse, while J.K Rowling suffered backlash after taking a public and controversial stance against transgender rights.
In November 2020, Johnny Depp faced huge backlash over accusations of domestic abuse against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. Depp’s infamous case of libel against The Sun newspaper divulged details of abuse claims which had led to the actor being condemned by the world as a wife beater. A year later, however, a defamation case between Depp and Heard have shone a light which has uncovered a much murkier version of the truth; a relationship of mutual abuse from both parties and one where perhaps Depp may have been the victim.
Cancel culture can be seen as a force for good in giving a voice to ostracised groups and allowing socially unacceptable behaviour such as racism, homophobia, or targeted hate speech to be challenged at the source. However, the term has negative connotations for its attempts to silence dissenters and threaten free speech. It often takes an absolute stance on whether somebody should be ‘cancelled’ that leaves little space for the nuances that reflect the realities of human interactions, nor allows open discussion from those who disagree with the majority.
The truth is, that as outsiders we are unaware of the nuances Depp and Heard’s relationship; and although the rallied cries against domestic abuse were loud and well intentioned, and the producers who dropped the actor from their films were well-meaning, the consequences of their decision are that a potentially innocent citizen has been sentenced to shame by the court of public opinion.
Rethinking Democracy
The problems with both cancel culture and populism are that they focus solely on the notion of majority rule with a disregard for the other values necessary for maintaining liberal society. The negative repercussions from both movements are testament to Socrates’ criticisms of unmediated democracy – it becomes a society where we are being ruled by sweetshop owners not doctors. In order to continue in our strides towards a better world, perhaps we should pay closer attention to the way in which we can align democracy with liberal principles.
The twentieth century philosopher John Stuart Mill provided a conception of democracy that is both consistent with and of benefit to liberalism, through upholding equality. He asserted that democracy’s merits come from its pursuance of equality, and so it is only to the extent that it upholds equality, that it will be of value in liberal society. In this way, he warned that democracy ought to protect minority rights. He was sceptical of majoritarian democracy and placed an emphasis on citizens being involved in politics, meaning open and free discussion and a willingness to listen to the dissenters and minority opinions.
Through oversimplifying democracy to simply mean that ‘will of the masses’ trumps all else, without upholding the importance of equality and open discussion, we lose value in the principle as a whole. This is because whilst these movements prey on the principle that governance should be subject to the will of the people, they disregard the reasons why we democracy is important in a liberal society. If we are not more considerate of the nuances and counter arguments surrounding our views, regardless of how much we disagree, we will be at risk of living in a world of Donald Trumps and Nigel Farages for years to come. Just as Oscar Wilde claimed “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death you right to make and ass of yourself” we should remind ourselves of Mill’s justifications before jumping to condemn the minority view.