Why democracy works

This is prompted by another article in Philosophy Now (Issue 169, Aug/Sep 2025) on Karl Popper, titled Popper, Science & Democracy written by Brian King, a ‘retired Philosophy and History teacher, author of an e-book, Arguing About Philosophy, and who currently runs adult Philosophy and History groups for the University of the Third Age’. The citation doesn’t give his country of residence.
 
The article covers Popper’s well known ideas on the importance of ‘falsification’ in science, especially in distinguishing science from pseudo-science, which I’ve covered elsewhere. It then discusses the role of language, which was the subject of my last post, so I won’t dwell on that either. The last (roughly) third of the article focuses on his ideas on democracy and government, formulated in the immediate wake of WW2, while he was living in self-imposed exile in New Zealand, where he wrote The Open Society & Its Enemies (1945). I haven’t read it, and to be honest, I was unaware that he held strong views on it.
 
Popper was sceptical about revolution from any side of politics because it invariably resorts to violence, which, like everyone of his generation, he’d seen enough of in the previous decades of the first half of the 20th Century. He emphasises the importance of an ‘open’ society, meaning one that is open to new ideas and doesn’t attempt to ‘freeze’ it in time (the first term is his, but the second term is mine). All around the world there is a spectrum in politics which can be loosely categorised into 2 groups: conservatives and liberals or progressives. I think progressive is a misnomer in that they are only recognised in hindsight as being ‘progressive’. At the time, they are labelled radical or worse.
 
The thing is that there are people who want to maintain the status quo and there are people who want to change things. I think you need both, because eventually what was considered radical in the past becomes normal in the present. Obvious examples include abolition and suffrage. Gay marriage is an example in-progress.
 
I think this discussion is very relevant right now, especially in America, where democracy, as it’s practiced, is being challenged if not threatened. The author (King) makes this point while referencing Popper:
 
The propensity of utopian dictatorships to bend truth to conform to party or state interests undermines truth.
 
I don’t think Trump wants a utopian dictatorship, though he may try and sell it that way, but I think he’s demonstrating the inherent weakness of a democratic ‘open’ society. I could also point to what’s currently happening in my own city of Melbourne in Australia, where a neo-Nazi group are currently being constrained by the law, though some would argue, ineffectually.
 
The inherent weakness of an open society is that it allows groups to exploit that openness to express views of hatred and also act upon them, which is what we’ve recently witnessed. I should point out that Melbourne prides itself on being a pluralist, multicultural society. The irony is that, if the neo-Nazis had their way, the openness we take for granted would be suppressed, even eliminated, and Melbourne would be ethnically cleansed.
 
Speaking of ethnic cleansing, this is what Trump is doing in America with his ICE agents, though no one calls it that. I’m not equating Trump to neo-Nazism, but what these 2 phenomena (on opposites side of the world) have in common, is a fundamental belief, even if unexpressed, that ‘might is right’. Trump believes in a zero-sum-game: there are winners and losers, where the winners are ‘strong’ and the losers are ‘weak’. It’s why he feels a kinship with Vladimir Putin over Volodymyr Zelensky, and with Netanyahu over the Palestinians. If he ever manages a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, I predict it will be by giving Russia everything it wants.
 
In his own country, he uses intimidation and extortion to get what he wants, by threatening to remove funding or filing law suits, many of which he knows he can’t win, but knows they scare the heck out of anyone who might oppose him.
 
While the vast majority of us prefer to resolve our differences without violence, people who have violent means at their disposal, take advantage of that. This extends to nations as well as a small group of neo-Nazis.
 
Trump is demonstrating why democracy works through its antithesis. A lot of his policies are harming the people who voted for him, with Medicaid being cut and cost of living not being helped by his tariff policies. If Trump had his way, he would replace the entire Board of the Federal Reserve, which would be devastating for America’s economy and would have ramifications worldwide. One only has to look at what happened in Turkey under Erdogan, when he did the same thing, and ended up with 80% inflation.
 
Trump’s entire political strategy, which got him into power, and is now driving his current agenda, is to stoke division. That’s why he’s putting troops on the streets of cities in Blue states. I know it sounds alarmist, but I think he’s hoping it will lead to violence. I might be wrong, but so far he’s exceeded my worst expectations. I believe his ultimate aim is to invoke the insurrectionist act so he can intervene legally instead of illegally. He’s made no secret of the fact that he wants to take control of the elections, which we know he attempted in his first term.
 
Having spent a working lifetime in engineering and construction, I’ve witnessed successful and unsuccessful projects, as well as being involved in a number of disputes. What I’ve learned is that the most successful projects arose out of collaboration rather than confrontation. It’s not that people had no differences of opinion, but they were resolved instead of degenerating into a blame game. In the latter case, you had stagnation, which only exacerbated the situation and made people dig their heels in.
 
One of the lessons I learned from disputes was that they inevitably arose from people lying to each other, where one party made promises they knew they couldn’t keep and the other party pretended they believed the lies to be true. A common thread running through this situation and the political scenarios I referenced above is the importance of trust. If people don’t trust their leaders the government is going to flail. This is why dictators take trust out of the equation altogether; they don’t need it. Dictators run a virtual protection racket: as long as you don’t oppose them, they won’t prosecute you (or worse).