Something I’ve been thinking about, wanting to say more about, but setting aside for now.
James Davison Hunter (2010):
Most people assume that the state is subsumed by democracy; that it is the means by which democratic governance occurs. Yet for the better part of the last century, many of the most insightful political and social theorists—including Max Weber, Lewis Mumford, Robert Michels, Michel Crozier, Reinhard Bendix, and Jacques Ellul— have insisted that there is an important distinction between the two, that they are decoupled in important ways and, most importantly, the relationship between them is at odds.
… The state is a massive, relatively autonomous bureaucratic organization whose purpose is to administer innumerable discrete tasks that make the regime function. Decisions made are filtered through nu-merous, often-unrelated bureaus staffed by professionals who have their own autonomous (and nondemocratic) decision-making authority. The tasks the state undertakes may be influenced by ideals or values provided by the political class, but those tasks do not embody those ideals. Rather, the tasks that define the actions of the state are administrative in nature and the highest aim is always efficiency.
The importance of specialists in politics is not restricted to governance but it extends into the core rituals and practices of democratic processes—not least of which is the challenge of getting elected. Here too political experts are involved at every level shaping the terms by which candidates present themselves, the positions they take on issues, and so on.
There are two critical implications of this situation. The first is that the state is not subject to electoral will. What this means is that political participation—both for politicians and citizens—is less about the expression of their sovereignty over the state than it is a surrender of their will to various political experts and technicians and the rules they have established. As Jacques Ellul noted long ago, that submission may be accompanied by great devotion to the cause, great prestige from being part of a group, and a great mystique surrounding the personalities who lead, but these are mainly “bromides for the conscience” that distract one from the reality of how much authenticity and freedom of judgment one has actually lost in the bargain. He undoubtedly overstates the case, as he often did, but the contention is more correct than not. In the end, popular sovereignty means less than we might hope. In this light, democracy is led by the bureaucratic necessities of the state arguably even more than it leads and directs the state.
Jacques Ellul (1967):
Eventually, any democratic administration inevitably rediscovers the idea of administrative decentralization. Of course such “local freedoms” are desirable; in fact, local autonomy is essential. But, first of all, there is very little likelihood of true decentralization taking place; it runs counter to the entire course of our society, and there is not the slightest indication of a reversal in that respect. Above all, such decentralization could take effect only in local communities and departments. But these are only a secondary aspect of an administration. The great administrative forces such as finances, police, propaganda, and the administration of science and technology, cannot be truly decentralized. They demand a carefully worked-out national organization, not diverse centers free to make autonomous decisions. An economic plan can include the establishment of decentralized organs, but it does so only within a perfectly centralized framework. One cannot see, therefore, how there can be true decentralization if a local organ, except for certain details and relatively unimportant technical means, is held to do and execute what has been decided beforehand. Therefore the term “popular administration” or “democratic administration” is nothing but a hollow formula with only a purely emotional content.
The epigraph Ellul chose for that book, Political Illusions:
The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; illusion will be their native land.
— Saint-Just