Is Popular Sovereignty a Viable Reality or a Noble Lie?

Student
Professor
Course
Date
Is Popular Sovereignty A Viable Reality Or A Noble Lie?
Introduction
The parliamentary representative government has been Europe’s most dominant version of governance since the eighteenth century. The factors that triggered the establishment of European representative governments were the spread of education and wealth and the growth of a prosperous middle class. Consequently, the inception of intellectual politics paved the way for the massive popularity of the parliamentary government in almost all of Europe (Mosca 253). The republican form of government has two bifurcations; the first one is based on the theoretical framework of Montesquieu, called liberalism.
This form of representative government seeks dissolution and separation of power in three tiers, and it is against bureaucratic absolutism (Mosca 254). On the other hand, the democratic form of government, based on Rousseau’s philosophy, assigns the legal right of political power to people elected by a majority of public consensus (Mosca 254). In this way, both forms of representative governments consider popular sovereignty the sole proof of the legitimacy of a government.
After establishing a democratically sovereign government in the eighteenth century, the development and evolution of this model of governance produced several modifications and theoretical manifestations, which led to the formation of modern social democracy. The doctrine of popular sovereignty gained considerable credence throughout its history since the appeal of its principle of universal suffrage has been undeniable even to its strongest opponents (Mosca 332). The power of natural truth inherent in the doctrine of democracy, which acknowledges only popular sovereignty, compels its opponent to follow it to gain power and authority. Moreover, people's might also discourages any form of theoretical or practical opposition in the form of anti-democratic coalitions and forces them to pay homage to democratic principles (Mosca 334). Hence, popular sovereignty still holds its sway as a viable reality.
Despite the widespread popularity of democratic and representative governments, theoretical and practical opposition has risen in recent years. One of those critics is Gaetano Mosca, who suggests that popular sovereignty acquired through suffrage involves political bickering, prolix speeches, and hollow promises, which render the whole system based on hollow presuppositions. Moreover, (Mosca 255). Moreover, he suggests that wealth disparity has made it possible for the wealthy class to rule over the masses under the pretext of popular sovereignty. Likewise, excessive interference of the minority ruling class in state matters triggers suppression of the rights of common people (Mosca 255). This criticism of political parties and the democratic political system provides valuable philosophical and theoretical ground to validate that popular sovereignty is a noble lie.
Another political scientist, Robert Michels, reveals other loopholes of popular democracy lying in its system; for this purpose, he argues that democracy is inherently an oligarchical system in which a faction of influential people holds sway over the majority (Michels 224). To add, Mosca and Michels criticize democracy by stating it as an ineffective system based on common people’s will, and these people may change their decisions under sway and propaganda. Additionally, in democracy, popular sovereignty demands the sharing of information on all matters, which is virtually impossible (Michels 23; Mosca 255). Similarly, Hans Kelsen is a political scientist who expresses his reservations over democracy and political parties despite considering them the only way to develop a semblance of popular sovereignty. Based on these scholars’ views on political parties in particular and democracy in general, one may assume that despite its apparent appeal to people, the notion of popular sovereignty does not grant any sovereignty to the masses. Instead, the democratic concept of popular sovereignty is no different from monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy; therefore, it is just an illusion that can be perceived as a noble lie instead of a viable reality.
Mosca’s Views on Political Parties
While discussing the nature and role of political parties in a democratic setup, Mosca points out several loopholes in the political setup working under the slogan of popular sovereignty. In a political organism, a person always stands out from the rest of the political setup in terms of his authority, sway, and power; for instance, instead of an elected president or prime minister, a person who may have financed the election holds more authority (Mosca 51). The person in actual authority may also need support from other like-minded party members to maintain his authority and sway over the political system.
A crucial aspect of this political dilemma is that if the minority ruling class within a political setup has to leave due to pressure exerted by the masses, the upcoming group will automatically form a clique to rule over the masses (Mosca 51). This dilemma exposes the loophole inherent in the working organization of a political setup and political party, as without a privileged minority group, the whole organization will be destroyed.
Mosca also evaluates the inherent nature and instinct of political parties based on the study of human nature and civilization; this evaluation further produces negative comments on the nature of political parties. According to Mosca’s findings, a political or religious setup is inherently based on the innate human nature of herding and fighting (165). Furthermore, the political and religious conflicts are caused by the flow of many current ideas and beliefs, and political parties provide a breeding ground for these problems (Mosca164). In this way, Mosca accurately points out the natural flaw embedded in the very structure and organization of the political parties. This flaw, for him, is the ultimate cause of the suppression of popular opinion and the dominance of minorities.
The working mechanism of a political party working in a so-called democratic society displays several contradictory and immoral tendencies, which destroy the essence of a representative government claiming the protection of popular sovereignty. For instance, political leaders may supervise human atrocities and release condemnation to protect their fake liberal and democratic identity (Mosca 168). To illustrate, Mazzini’s political leadership was so strong that people were willing to commit any crime under the pretext of struggle for political rights. Other democratic leaders, such as Owen down to Fourier and Lazzaretti, also provide examples of how political leadership influences people to undertake the most precious sacrifices (Mosca 168). This aspect of political leadership further negates the famous notion of the benefits of democratic principles and public government.
The way a person or a group of people select a political party as their ideal also signifies a crucial weakness embedded in the system of democracy. To exemplify, to be successful and popular, a political party must satisfy the wild passion and mentality of the masses regardless of its morality (Mosca 178). In other words, a political party must satisfy the animal and unrefined instinct of many people to gain public credibility; thereby, it even violates the fundamental principles of morality and democracy (Mosca 178).
In the same way, a political party cannot work properly without a central nucleus or executive committee; this committee has to be more powerful and authoritative, and the supporters are obliged to follow its ruling (Mosca 178). In this way, political parties inherently violate the principles of democracy by suppressing people’s right to express their will.
A unique aspect of a political party that Mosca identifies is that despite its claim about peace and harmony, it inherently seeks war and bloodshed for those who do not align with its doctrine. A political party’s emphasis on peace and lack of conflict reflects its internal realization that to accomplish its target, it must engage in bloody conflict with people (Mosca 177). This aspect of a political party is an inevitable outcome of the principle and manifesto it propagates as it tends to oppose dissent by any means. In this way, it violates the fundamental principle of democracy. Hence, this façade of a political system exposes the innermost workings of its operatives; thereby, one can easily identify that a political setup does not promote popular sovereignty but autonomy and aristocracy.
A political party and its supporters proclaim they are working to develop cultural, social, and financial harmony in society. They represent the populace, and their interests form the cornerstone of their ideology. Conversely, however, the core focus of a political party’s struggle is inherently the same as that of an autocrat (Mosca 177). To elaborate, Mosca lists the real preferences of the political parties as “love of luxury, lust for blood and women, ambition to command and to tyrannize.” (177). Consequently, in complete contrast to their claims, political parties seek and enjoy similar privileges that one expects from a tyrant or autocrat; therefore, it is not wrong to affirm that instead of promoting popular sovereignty, political parties work against the populace's wishes.
A political party itself is a symbol of dissent of opinions in society since its foundation is based on a specific ideology bound to conflict with some other section of that society. For the same reason, Mosca highlights that it is virtually impossible to outline a political party that can satisfy the needs of all factions of a society (Mosca 177). However, Mosca correctly identifies that it is obligatory to reach political consent; a fusion of lofty sentiment and low emotion must be the only possible way. In this way, Mosca clarifies that a political party is, by nature, a mixture of base and lofty ambition. For the same reason, it does not fulfill the requirement of being a symbol of the highest moral and ethical values, as claimed by the proponents of democracy.
The transient political fervor and enthusiasm that political parties promote is detrimental to political parties as it further reveals their inherent drawbacks. In this regard, Mosca makes a very interesting and realistic observation about the movement of a political party; accordingly, he explains that political heroism leads to the transient unification of various interest groups in a political party (Mosca 187). Thereby, people show political enthusiasm and a spirit of sacrifice for some time; however, once the political fervor is over, they resort to their instinct and contentment for their self-interests. In other words, Mosca claims that political ideology is insufficient to “spread them far abroad and assure them of a permanent existence.” (Mosca 188). This weakness on the part of political parties also substantiates the argument that political parties symbolize a blatant denial of popular sovereignty.
Ultimately, a political organization's working principle and intent is the most viable aspect of Mosca’s argument against political parties that substantiates his thesis. Accordingly, he states that a political party always attempts to exert influence on people who are in an authoritative position. In this way, they aim to monopolize the power and stifle the popular opinion (192). This specific characteristic of a political party makes it a symbol of autocratic forces vying to control the masses rather than empower them. For the same reason, Mosca concludes his argument about political parties by stating that political parties are inherently a symbol of the modern-day continuation of autocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Hence, one may utilize this logical argument to substantiate the thesis that popular sovereignty is a mirage or noble lie.
Mosca’s Critique of Democracy
To further criticize the democratic process and its concept of popular sovereignty, Mosca derides democracy as a form of government reciprocal to aristocracy; however, this aristocracy holds many members (Mosca 52). For this purpose, he lays down various logical arguments to explain the features of democracy, which aligns it with other forms of governance. To elaborate on this issue, Mosca posits that a form of government cannot exist in real-life politics until a small minority dominates over the majority (53). For him, the actions of a handful of organized people easily dominate over a group of thousands of people not having a common impulse, as they can be dealt with easily at the individual level. Therefore, a dominating minority is as inevitable in democracy as in autocracy.
To further explain the drawbacks of democracy, Mosca posits that since a democratic setup is established after gaining consent from a large number of people, the disorganization of the masses in such a setup will be much greater. Accordingly, the proportion of the ruling minority will be much higher than the number of people elected them (Mosca 53). For the same reason, for such a large disorganized majority, it would be extremely challenging for a disorganized mass to offer an organized resistance to the monopoly of an organized minority ruling over them (Mosca 53). In this way, a democratic setup, although it pretends to display popular sovereignty, rules over common people just like an autocratic society. This aspect of a democratic setup exposes its flawed structure and ideology.
Establishing ruling minorities in a so-called democratic setup appears unique and pluralistic; however, once the ruling minority takes hold of the authority, its nature and stature change dramatically. The governing polity becomes completely separated from the masses and develops specific moral, material, and intellectual superiority akin to a monarch's (Mosca 53). In this way, a democratic setup imparts the characteristics of nobility and royalty to the people elected by popular consent; thereby, the very nature of a democratic republic, which is based on the notion of popular sovereignty, is transformed into an autocratic form of government more similar to an oligarchy (Mosca 53). Hence, democracy provides legitimacy to the rule of the few.
It is a fact that democracy allows the masses to choose their representative, and this aspect of democracy creates a semblance of popular sovereignty. However, Mosca disagrees with this assumption and claims that even in a democratically elected government, the ruling elite mostly belongs to those who have inherited political and social leadership from their autocratic and monarchical ancestors (61). In this regard, he quotes the examples of English, French, and Italian parliaments in which most of the ruling elites are the sons and grandsons of former members of monarchical families (Mosca 62). Here, one can easily identify how Mosca provides another irrefutable proof of the hollowness of the idea of popular sovereignty, which democracy propagates.
A democratic or representative government seems to grant democratic freedom and authority to the masses; however, in reality, it is a more sophisticated means to violate people's fundamental rights. In this regard, one can refer to instances of modern-day countries where, despite the evolution of democracy, the ruling elites reserve the right to govern specific domains (Mosca 56). For instance, in some countries such as India and Poland, the right to keep arms was reserved only for the ruling military elites, even in democratic setups (Mosca 56). Furthermore, in many countries, there is a division within the military, which places the laboring class in the lowest ranks. This division is a means to further deepen the class difference and abolish any trace of popular sovereignty that democracy promises.
The examples of countries like Greece further endorse this argument; during Greece’s war with the Medes, the military elite completely barred the proletariats from participating in the war. Moreover, in republic Rome, the same arrangements were made for the masses during the Punic War and Marius's days (Mosca 56). By highlighting this aspect of a typical republican government, Mosca attempts to explain how a representative government suppresses the rights of the masses, making them completely helpless to raise their voice against injustice. Likewise, this point also endorses the belief that in a representative government, the masses are suppressed in the same way as in an autocracy; therefore, the notion of popular sovereignty is merely an illusion.
The masses are almost always ignorant and devoid of logical faculty; for the same reason, rhetorical techniques can easily shape their views. Democracy offers shrewd politicians and public figures this opportunity to stir people’s emotions and garner their favor. Hence, in most cases, people are powerless to express their concern over violating their rights or even sense that their rights are being violated (Mosca 400). To further reinforce this argument, Mosca provides the example of Napoleon, who got maximum admiration from the masses despite his policy proving drastically painful for the masses (Mosca 176). In this way, Mosca manages to prove his point that in a democratic setup, the masses are not given the authority or chance to express their dissent and resentment over the violation of their rights. Therefore, instead of providing them with sovereignty, democracy suppresses their remaining will.
As the above discussion indicates, the masses are mostly ignorant and sentimental, and for the same reason, they are easily impressed by the state’s propaganda machinery. The use of fiery rhetoric and rubble-rousing techniques is part of a democratic and political society; hence, one cannot anticipate the masses to make a logical and informed decision about their sovereignty and rulers (Mosca 190). Thus, democracy and representative governments offer an excellent opportunity for monarchs and autocrats to use propaganda and public sentiments and develop their ascendency over them under the pretext of protecting their rights (Mosca 192). By satisfying their whims, flattery, their passions and addressing their crude appetite, a shrewd leader can hold even greater influence over the masses than a monarch (Mosca 193). Hence, one can easily deduce from this argument that democracy offers only a semblance of popular sovereignty.
In parliamentary democracies, the parliament is believed to be the sole representative of the masses and protector of their rights. ...