Hubert Lagardelle on democracy and elections

Hubert Lagardelle (1874 - 1958) - one of the outstanding figures of French revolutionary syndicalism, a close collaborator of Georges Sorel. Subsequently, he became disillusioned with syndicalist ideas and joined the right. Nevertheless, this text from the heyday of French syndicalism, written by Lagardelle, in our opinion, deserves special attention in the context of the upcoming “elections” to the State Duma.

... Syndicalists do not believe that democracy is capable of generating new social values; in our opinion, this is a regime that, instead of elevating, degrades the human personality. This does not mean that democracy is not a system superior to its predecessors; insofar as it has been able to realize political freedoms and ensure freedom of speech, it is a beginning, albeit in a negative sense, representing an integral factor in social progress. However, in its positive aspect, in terms of its mode of action, democracy cannot produce anything great. What are the foundations of democracy? The individual and the state, which is a derivative of the will of individuals. Rousseau showed well what myth this regime was based on. Political society proceeds not from a consideration of real people in their practical life - workers, capitalists, landowners, etc. - but from a type of abstract person, devoid of any tangible qualities and who is identical with himself at all levels of social life - the citizen. Thanks to this fiction, it is possible to believe that all people have equal rights, regardless of their social position, that they represent equal values ​​that only need to be added together, that the law of their activity is determined by the will of their greatest number. It is on this pile of dust into which man has been transformed that the state bases its dominance. Differences between people are recognized insofar as they suit his purposes. No matter how rare a particular paradox may be, it is justified by the degree of chaos that it generates. Can there be any doubt that a citizen, deprived of everything, cannot do anything for himself on his own? Of course, he is a sovereign, but a weak sovereign. Doomed to a fragmented existence, his weakness justifies the existence of power. The function of the state is precisely to impose order on this mass of disunited individuals; power “above” can only exist because anarchy reigns “below”. But the state and the individual are separated by a gulf that prevents direct communication between them. They need intermediaries; these intermediaries are called parties. Their role is to determine and express the will of the people. They replace the citizen, they act on his behalf, they are his representatives. This is the principle of democracy: the citizen is just an additional variable in the play, the course of which is directed by others. He cannot exercise his power except by transferring it to third parties, and his sovereignty is manifested in multiple acts of renunciation of this power. Syndicalism denies this principle of democracy as a corruption of the human personality. Representative order presupposes, by definition, that the citizen is powerless. And he is powerless because he is incompetent. And he is incompetent because he is an abstract personality, divorced from the real conditions of life, despite the fact that he has to express his opinion not on those problems that are associated with his direct experience and are the basis of his material existence, but on a whole series of vague and indefinite issues covered by the concept of “general interest”, about which he has not the slightest idea. Therefore, he has to elect a competent representative, and - another paradox! - believe that a citizen who is incompetent in relevant matters can surpass his own competence in this act of choice. Once such a choice is made, the citizen remains inactive. He delegated his authority to another; now all he can do is wait. This is forced laziness. It turns out that this weak sovereign is also a lazy sovereign. There is no sense of responsibility, no concept of effort, no appeal to the vital forces of the individual! There is none of this, or almost none: all that remains is the simple expression of the will of the voter, carried out once every four years. This inertia is reinforced by the accompanying demoralization. What, if not a terrible degeneration of personality, can be the consequence of all this fuss, intrigue and hypocrisy of vulgar politics? Party rivalry is nothing more than an unrestricted competition between various interest groups seeking sinecures and demanding nothing from them in the positions to which the possession of the state opens the way. Mediocrity and baseness are the lot of democracies. Let’s also add here: “gullibility and mistrust.” And how could it be otherwise? Shouldn't a voter have faith in their candidate of choice? He chose him on the basis of his promises and his perceived willingness to fulfill them. Hasn't much already been said about the cult of personality generated by this regime? On the other hand, a citizen, as a rule, is so quickly disappointed in the people whom he trusted and elected as his representatives that he soon regrets his choice. And so, thanks to the whims of fate during elections, the influence of certain parties either decreases or increases. The voter, who supports one party or another out of caprice or misunderstanding of the state of affairs, feels resentment against the party for which he previously voted, but falls under the spell of the false promises of another party, is only the unfortunate slave of them all, and a despised pawn in their game.