Although written in a different technological moment, Fr. Arsène Brice Bado's article speaks directly to many of the questions that confront us today in the age of artificial intelligence. By examining the tensions between democratic institutions, citizen participation, social movements, and the common good, the article opens a path for reflecting on how new forms of power emerge and how societies can respond to them. As AI systems increasingly shape public life and influence collective decision-making, Bado's vision of a more participatory and substantive democracy challenges us to consider how technology can be governed in ways that promote justice, inclusion, accountability, and human dignity.

We invite readers to revisit this earlier reflection as a valuable source of inspiration for discerning how democracy may evolve in response to the opportunities and risks posed by AI and for ensuring that technological progress continues to serve people and the common good.

Introduction

The socio-political context of the post-industrial societies seems to rhyme with an antidemocracy. In fact, for a number of authors such as Ronald Inglehart (1977), (Chagnollaud, 2010, pp. 203-205) Martine Barthélémy (2000), Samuel Barnes and Max Kaase (1979), the citizens’ lack of interest in democratic practises (the vote, partisan militancy, etc.) is explained by the change in values, which is taking place in the post-industrial societies. They are passing from materialist values linked to material aspects of well-being and to the security of life, to post-materialist values giving pride of place rather to individuals, to their identity and personal well-being, in short, to their quality of life.

This change has been made possible not only thanks to the development of education, technical innovation and economic growth which favour among other things an improvement in living standards, but also by the recognition and promotion of individual rights. Pierre de Lauzan describes these changes as the emergence of a ‘new anthropology’ characterized by “a recognition of human beings’ dignity, trust in their freedom and in their autonomy of choice, greater tolerance, more equal opportunities, etc.”(2011, p. 95)

These socio-cultural changes are not without consequence for politics in general and for democracy in particular. For the promotion of the individual values is made in opposition to the traditional sources of authority (1999, p. 226). Anthony Giddens describes this situation of the institutionalisation of radical doubt, so that henceforth all sources of authority are contested (1991, p. 3). In this context the State, the political parties and other representative institutions assuring the mediation of the authorities are likewise contested if not fallen into disuse. Today what seems to be promoted are the political forms of direct participation such as the new social movements, special interest groups, etc. – new actors whose identity and actions seem far from being able to reassure either the functioning of the game and of ‘traditional’ democratic institutions or the thinkers of democracy.

From this point, we may ask ourselves whether democracy will survive in the context of the post-materialist societies. If the question is legitimate, its answers are far from achieving unanimity among political analysts. In a dialectic approach we shall show that for some democracy is threatened (1), while for others, on the contrary, it shows signs of vitality (2). We shall conclude by showing that democracy, rather, is in transformation in both its conception and in the practices of it, and consequently its evaluation must henceforth integrate new elements once again (3).

The Loss of Interest in Institutions and Democratic Practices

Democracy is placed in a difficult position in our contemporary societies by growing cynicism in the area of institutions, governments and the political elites. This cynicism is the work of those whom Pippa Norris has called ‘critical citizens’(1999) or what Pierre Rosanvallon has called ‘the people judge’ (2006, pp. 22, 199-255). These are the kind of citizens who have a greater need for transparency. This explains, in part, the decline of support for the political elites who pass ‘transparency tests’ regarding management with difficulty. Indeed during the past two decades several ‘men of state’ have been dismissed because of an uninterrupted succession of scandals (Castells, 1999, pp. 401-412). Scandal has become a powerful weapon which citizens, special interest groups and above all the media use against the political elites, which has ended by discrediting them (Castells, 1999, p. 401) (Norris P. , 2011, pp. 169-187). Empirical and statistical studies (Dalton R. , pp. 62-66) confirm the drastic reduction of the citizens’ confidence in the political elites whom they consider unable to represent them adequately. Actually, apart from scandals, the political elites barely escape from the iron law of oligarchy (Larry & Gunther, 2001, p. xii). In this context to many people representative democracy seems no longer to be so much a regime founded on the sovereignty of the people as rather a type of organization which gives power to the elite.

Democratic governments enjoy no better support than the political elites. Already in 1975 M. Crozier, S. Huntington and J. Watanuki were referring to a ‘crisis of democracies’ in the West which was essentially expressed by the inability of states and governments to face all the social demands that were being conveyed to them. This gave rise to a further calling into question of their functional legitimacy (Crozier, Huntington, & Watanuki, 1975). Russell Dalton (2005), Pippa Norris (1999, pp. 66-69), (2011, pp. 104-107), Susan Pharr and Robert Putnam (2000, pp. 52-73) have shown by empirical and quantitative studies how support to democratic institutions is declining in all the industrialized countries, at least since the 1980s.

Political parties seem to be the most threatened of the democratic institutions. They adapt with difficulty if not very slowly to the social and cultural changes which have occurred in contemporary societies. Political parties see their role of mediation between citizens dwindling. They are increasingly losing their political functions of information and education of citizens to mass media. For most citizens in contemporary societies enjoy a sufficiently high level of education to enable them to gain access to information by themselves in order to choose their sources of political information. From this point they often have recourse to mass media, including the internet, in order to acquire information and to form an opinion for themselves on political questions and issues. This does not necessarily mean that citizens are better informed politically than they were in the past (Norris P. , 2011, pp. 142-168)^[1]. For, as Pascal Perrineau rightly notes, “‘multiplying sources of information does not increase individuals’ cognitive capacities’” (2003, p. 260).

Be that as it may, the parties are losing part of their influence over citizens, which is prejudicial to democratic participation (Dalton, Wattenberg, & (eds), 2000, p. 10). Likewise other functions (Larry & Gunther, 2001, p. xiv), (Dalton, Wattenberg, & (eds), 2000, pp. 5-10) ‘traditionally’ attributed to political parties, such as the mobilisation of electors, the structuring of the selection of candidates in relation to political issues, the representation of different social groups, the aggregation of particular interests in the government’s political programme, etc., are henceforth shared by other actors and especially by social movements, by the organisations of social movements, and above all by special interest groups. On the one hand, this leads to calling into question the primacy of political parties as bodies aggregating the citizens’ preferences, and on the other, to electoral fidelities. They are now becoming “parties without partisans”, title of the work by Dalton and Watternberg. A large proportion of the rare citizens who are still officially affiliated to parties settle for what Putnam has described as “participation based on the cheque book” (2000, p. 40).

Lastly, it is the function of the traditional democratic system which is called into question by the emergence of a contentious politics which by nature is “episodic rather than continuous, takes place in public, implies an interaction between claimants and others, is recognised by these others as weighing on their interests and engages the government as mediator, target or claimant” (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996, p. 5). Contentious politics whose principle agents are social movements^[2] project into the public space claims of a radical, utopian and identity character, calling into question the status and hierarchical foundations that lie at the root of the functioning of the traditional democratic system.

Citizens’ Attachment to democratic Principles and to Democratic Communities

Optimistic theses on the vigour of democracy and its future in contemporary societies essentially rely on a reconceptualization of political support. The work Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government by Pippa Norris and her co-authors is at the best illustration of this. Their effort of reconceptualization finds support in the works of David Easton who distinguishes three dimensions of the concept of ‘political support’, (Easton, 1965), (Norris P. (., 1999, p. 9) namely, support for the political community (national pride, patriotism), support for the type of regime (democratic, dictatorial, etc.), and support for the political authorities (political elites). Norris et al.take up Easton’s ideas while elaborating them further and distinguish five dimensions of the concept of political support: 1) for the political community, 2) for the principles of the political regime, 3) for the performance of the regime, 4) for the institutions of the regime, and 5) for the political authorities. The breaking down of the concept of ‘political support’ into five dimensions permits a better diagnosis of the democratic malaise. Norris and her co-authors have shown by comparative quantitative analyses that democracy as a type of political regime enjoys significant support from populations who prefer it to every other form of regime. (1999, p. 43) In addition, in all democratic countries, the populations show their pleasure at belonging to a democratic national political community (1999, pp. 41-42). For Norris and her co-authors sources of dissatisfaction are rather political institutions (parties, governments, national assemblies, etc.), political authorities (governments, leaders of political parties, etc.), as well as the functioning and performance of democratic governments today. But this dissatisfaction is rather a sign of vitality and of renewed interest in democratic principles. Citizens disapprove of the fact that the democratic ideal is not put into practice. Thus ‘critical citizens’ would not be antidemocrats but ‘dissatisfied democrats’.

As for the socio-cultural context of contemporary societies that would be unfavourable to democracy, Ronald Inglehart disputes the idea that post-materialist values are antidemocratic. For him, post-modernization erodes authority but increases support for democracy as a type of regime (1999, p. 236). We agree with him that the contentious politics of social movements have converged, in spite of everything, in more ways than one with those of participatory and substantive democracy. We may think of demands related to the introduction of new values and of new themes in the public space with reference to gender, to the body, to healthcare, to the environment, to the recognition of the ethnic and cultural differences brought by the new social movements.

“Politics in the age of defiance” of sources of authority such as the state and the political parties is not anti-democratic. For ‘individuals’ are more than ever disposed to burst into the public space even if it is in the name of their personal interests. The increased presence of social actors in the public space has made it possible in various respects to draw the attention of public opinion to social injustices, which had previously been ignored or neglected. We have consequently been able to grasp the increased importance of diversity and social and cultural pluralism as things that play a part in the idea of democracy.

Conclusion: we are witnessing a transformation of democracy and its practices

The authors who defend theses on the vitality of democracy have clearly shown that today’s societies are still strongly attached to the democratic ideal and by far prefer a democratic regime to any other type of political regime. They also show their pride in belonging to a democratic community. However, to what extent would the crisis of political institutions, the loss of trust in political leaders as well as the dysfunctions of democratic governments spare the democratic ideal and principles?

Dismissing the theses of the decline and vitality of democracy in contemporary societies, we pose the hypothesis that a malaise exists in democracy, indeed a need for the transformation and adaptation of democracy to the socio-cultural changes that have taken place in postmodernity. In concrete terms it is right to rethink on the one hand democracy through its system of representation and participation, and on the other, the actions of new actors such as the organizations of civil society, organized through a process of institutionalization and constitutionalization in order to facilitate their interactions in the political and democratic system.

As we have shown, special interest groups ensure or claim to ensure a form of representation of the interests of their members. It is therefore important that the political representation is now enlarged beyond partisan representation in order to include associative representation.

The same applies to democratic participation which should no longer be limited to political parties and which must henceforth integrate associative participation almost on a daily basis. In fact the participation of organizations of civil society in politics challenges the idea that political participation should be limited to partisan electoral participation in order that, once they are elected, political leaders have their hands free to initiate the policies of their choice without interference from citizens (Schumpeter, 1990), (Huntington, 1968). The involvement of citizens in political life through associations orientates them rather towards a substantive democracy with a larger and more regular civic participation. This form of democratic participation “is practised on a daily basis and in numerous ways: by lobbying for or against the decisions of public bodies, by means of a whole range of organizations, by holding referendums and even by assuming functions and roles that were once thought to be the exclusive responsibility of a central government” (Suleiman, 2003, p. 380).

However this broadening of substantive democracy would only have meaning if in parallel the new actors in the public space engaged in a process of institutionalization at the organizational level and of constitutionalization at the regulatory level. For if politics and especially democracy consist of recognition of the diversity of the actors and integration of their differences on the basis of temporary compromises, it is important that these new actors should obey a certain management. The trade unions for example, which are former special interest groups, are better institutionalized, which makes them more responsible in the management of their members, but also in the respect of democratic rules. The new groups must therefore inscribe their actions in a legal or at least legitimate framework, in order to secure for their actions in the public space a certain transparency. Since democracy is also a state of rights it would not be in opposition to democratic practice to produce laws and regulations in order to manage as best as possible the uncertainty of group interventions in the public space.

More fundamentally it is politics itself that we must rethink. The ‘critical citizen’ of Norris or ‘the people judge’ of P. Rosanvallon (2006) are perhaps in quest of another political ideal. For in the last analysis it is a historically dated type of political organisation that is involved. It has long been inconceivable to think of politics outside the state, its institutions and its territory controlled by means of a combination of frontiers and normative instruments. It is time to rediscover a different kind of politics.

To sum up, if amid the expansion of political rights the emergence of a substantive democracy seems to upset the functioning of a procedural democracy, there is no need to fear for the survival of democracy itself. The new social movements, special interest groups and, more broadly, organized civil society are showing undeniable signs of renewing the political forces at the heart of democratic regimes.

Bibliography

• Barnes, Samuel and Max Kaase (eds.). (1979). Political Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies.Berkeley Hills: Sage
• Barthélémy, Martine. (2000). Associations: un nouvel âge de la participation? Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
• Bentley, Arthur F. (1995). The process of Government. A Study of Social Pressures. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers.
• Berry, J. (1999). The New Liberalism, The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
• Bréchon, Pierre. (2002). “Les individualismes en Europe”. Project.Vol. 3, no 271, p. 54.
• Castells, Manuel. (1999). Le pouvoir de l'Identité. Paris: Fayard,
• Chagnollaud, Dominique. Science politique. Éléments de sociologie politique. Paris: Dalloz, 7th edition, 2010, pp. 203-205.
• Crozier M.; Huntington S.P.; and Watanuki J. (1975). The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
• Dalton, R. “Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies”. in Norris, Pippa (ed.). Critical Citizens, pp. 62-66.
• Dalton, Russell. (2005). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dalton, R. J.; M. P. Wattenberg (eds.). (2000). Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Easton, David. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Giddens, Anthony, (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
• Inglehart, Ronald. (1977). The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Politics. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
• Inglehart, R. (1999). Postmodernization Erodes Respect for Authority, but Increases Support for Democracy », in Norris, Pippa (éd.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government,Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Huntington, Samuel. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Larry, Diamond; & Gunther, Richard (eds.)(2001). Political Parties and Democracy. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Lauzun, Pierre de. (2011). L’avenir de la démocratie. Vol.1, Politique, Paris: François-Xavier de Guibert.
• McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly, (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McAdam, D.; J. D. McCarthy; & M. N. Zald (eds.)(1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Neveu, E. (2005). Sociologie des mouvements sociaux. Paris: La Découverte,
• Norris, Pippa. Democratic Deficit. Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Norris, Pippa. (ed.). (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Perrineau, Pascal. (2003). Le désenchantement démocratique. Éditions de l’aube.
• Pharr S. J. and Putnam R. D. (eds.)(2000). Disaffected Democracies: Whatʹs Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press.
• Putnam, R. D.; & Bowling (2000). Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Rosanvallon, Pierre. (2006). La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
• Schumpeter, Joseph. (1990). Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie. Paris: Payot.
• Sommier, Isabelle. (2000). Le renouveau des mouvements sociaux contestataires. Paris: Flammarion.
• Sue, Roger. (2003). “Le lien d’association: un nouvel horizon pour la démocratie”, in Édith Heurgon and Josée Landrieu (dir.), Des « nous » et des « je » qui inventent la cité.La Tour d’Aigues: Éditions de l’Aube. pp. 79-93.
• Suleiman, Ezra. (2003). Le démantèlement de l’État démocratique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
• Tilly, Charles. (2004). Contention and Democracy in Europe. 1650-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Vidjinnagni Adjovi, E. (2006).Emmanuel “Mobilisations citoyennes et démonopolisation du travail politique au Bénin”. Perspectives Afrique. Vol.1, No. 3: 187-223.

Original French
TranslationCatherine Marceline Rice

[1] An inquiry made in several post-industrial societies in order to assess the citizens’ knowledge of democracy revealed that the level of their knowledge of democracy was average and not necessarily satisfactory.

[2] A social movement is a concerted collective action whose dynamic rests on a vision (interpretation) of society or on a specific reality with a determination to pose a type of action with a view to defending a cause. In this sense it is a contentious enterprise. Ontologically, a social movement cannot be reduced to an actor or an organization. It is a network of interactions between various types of actors such as citizens, special interest groups, institutions, businesses, political parties, etc. Unlike other organizations which defend causes, social movements have a weak level of institutionalization. See Sommier, Isabelle, Le renouveau des mouvements sociaux contestataires. Paris: Flammarion, 2000; Neveu, E., Sociologie des mouvements sociaux, Paris: La Découverte, 2005; McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Della Porta, D. and S. Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest & Global Activism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

Author

Cover image credits: A group of people holding signs and wearing masks. Photo: Sam Mann (@sammannfilms). Source: Unsplash, published under the free-to-use Unsplash License on 9 June 2022 (UTC).