A clearly recognizable trend is unfolding in current historical times within social processes: the spread of authoritarianism in the gover...
A clearly recognizable trend is unfolding in current historical times within social processes: the spread of authoritarianism in the governance of society. The trend is understandable. For the overwhelming majority of historical times, essentially with the exception of the past few decades, authoritarian governance has fundamentally been characteristic of human societies, the functioning of which is determined by the assertion of the will of a minority of society, the group that controls society’s resources.
Technological development and industrialization made possible, and—due to its efficiency and effectiveness led to the widespread adoption of the capitalist economic model—the enhancement of production that fuels economic growth, together with the catalytic effect of rising wages that enable increased consumption to compensate for overproduction, contributed to increasingly broad access to values, which created the possibility of wealth accumulation and thereby lead to the ownership of social resources for ever wider segments of society, which as a natural consequence also increased the social demand for having the influence in decisions concerning social processes.
Where this social demand was able to assert itself, a more democratic form of social governance moving toward equality, the representative democracy typically emerged. In principle, representative democracy selects suitably qualified members of society for roles in governance and also for the privileges that accompany it; in practice, however, it exhibits numerous counterproductive characteristics, favoring the rise to positions of power of individuals who are adept at presenting themselves as suitable candidates but are unfit to govern in ways that truly serve society’s interests.
The defining feature of democracy is the prevalence of the will of the majority of society. Representative democracy obviously does not fulfill this function, because
- the will of the majority of society does not prevail in the realm of concrete matters to be decided, only manifests itself merely in the election of the persons authorized to make decisions and carry out governance,
- for the sake of maintaining the functioning, typically even the basic principle of democracy is not a criterion to prevail during the selection of leaders, namely that the will of the real majority of society must appear,
- the political accountability of leaders, the holding to account of leaders for implementing the will of society is possible only through cyclical elections; the accountability in the period between elections is typically not enforceable.
Representative democracy, in the process of selecting society’s leaders, contains elements that approach towards democracy; however, the governance that is realized in practice is, in its character, practically similar to authoritarian rule. The representative democracy, which is currently called democracy, is a social form of authoritarian systems, where society has some influence over the selection of decision-making leaders and reassignment of their power, but in practice, society does not participate directly in governance.
Representative democracy should continue on the path to the realization of a truly democratic social order, however, the only effective (because it is operating evolutionary) capitalist economic model, in societies that choose this model and are therefore suitable for increasing their potential which prefers economic concentration, results in a social state of wealth distribution that generally does not limit inequality due to the enforcement of individual interests that naturally arise during the operation of capitalism and is also present in governance. This, on the one hand, erodes democratic processes that prevail towards social equality, and on the other hand, due to the concentration of resources and the exercise of social power that is claimed and endorsed from this, it even prevents democratic changes that act towards social equality.
The observable result of this functioning is the counter-reformation of democratic processes, the emergence of reversion as a defining feature of contemporary social movements to the earlier authoritarian social order, which typically occurs alongside the support of social groups that are dissatisfied due to the revealed hypocrisy in the supposedly democratic transition and not perceiving the danger of the rearrangement, or even actually enjoying the benefits of the process moving toward reversion. The social dissatisfaction regarding the ongoing democratic transition is understandable. Representative democracy is presented in politics as the realization of democracy, but its practical functioning in governing society occurs in an authoritarian manner.
Representative democracy is incapable of eliminating the authoritarian characteristics of social governance; for example, it considers inherent authoritarian features, such as corruption and protectionism, undesirable and even prohibits them, yet these features appear continuously and are present in the social governance carried out by representative democracy. Observing the presence of processes that undermine the fundamental principle of democracy within representative democracy, a significant portion of society, sometimes even the majority, holds democracy itself responsible for these damaging properties. According to the rules of representative democracy, society often elects leaders who, in response to social demand, populistically advocate for the elimination of the authoritarian elements, yet, in order to operate without limiting rules—and typically enjoying social support on this—they actually work toward restricting, or even dismantling the emerging democratic institutional system, thereby allowing, and even catalyzing the process through utilizing the instruments of power for their own benefit, resulting anti-democratic regression toward a classical authoritarian social order.
The return to power of the beneficiaries of the old world order, those with outstanding wealth, and the restoration by them of the previously authoritarian social order that benefited them, is taking place in a new technological era, in the age of artificial intelligence, which actually facilitates this process. And when, in a representative democracy, an authoritarian rollback or a counter-reformation against democratic progress begins, the process typically proceeds in a self-reinforcing manner. The dismantling of institutional checks and balances that limit the appropriation of power serves the interests of those in power, and as the influence of power over institutions that ensure control—including the media and the judiciary system—increases and their independence weakens, the rollback towards authoritarianism encounters fewer institutional resistances, the authoritarian regime strengthens more and more, and this process becomes increasingly irreversible by society.
We can experience these rearrangements in contemporary social processes, with the presumed consequence of which—especially if the political system fails to offer society a genuinely democratic social model—is the general return of authoritarianism and the economic system that supports it.
The societal shift toward democracy was made possible by increasingly widespread access to social resources and the following growing social equality, resulting in a society with the potential for growth capable of strengthening itself more effectively than societies functioning under authoritarian rule. However, this fundamental correlation regarding the potential of society and the governance of society changes with the utilization of artificial intelligence.
Contemporary artificial intelligence affects the relationship between social potential created by authoritarian rule in two ways. On one hand, artificial intelligence, by simulating an increasingly advanced way of the human cognitive functions, is able to replace the presence of human intelligence in work processes. On the other hand, the specific application of artificial intelligence helps societal leadership achieve extensive oversight and control over society. These two characteristics simultaneously enable those in power to expropriate and to concentrate social resources more effectively, while also restricting widespread social influence in the exercise of political power and suppressing any potential societal demands in the operation of power.
With the application of artificial intelligence, social potential can grow effectively even without utilizing the potential of free will of the members of society, and can prosper without the necessity for social cohesion, even with a decreasing size of society under authoritarian systems. Socio-economic change toward widespread authoritarianism appears easier to achieve and therefore seems more likely than social growth and fulfillment through the realization of a functioning real democracy.
A widespread reappearance and becoming common of authoritarian regimes seems inevitable in the ongoing social changes, as well as the consequences of which are the societies that are diminishing and becoming insignificant in their influence, and the rise to power and general authority of dictators representing groups that increasingly, and eventually totally, control resources.
During the historical periods of authoritarian systems that constitute a defining part of history, remarkable social achievements could, of course, emerge, but in terms of results, a more democratic environment that is able to effectively apply human free will, which also inherently requires cooperation, ensures greater effectiveness. In contrast, a general and undeniable characteristic of authoritarian systems is the inherent rivalry instead of cooperation with one another. The presence of democracy generally supports cooperation, whereas the functioning of dictatorships promotes conquest and the establishment of dominance over others. The spread of democracy is clearly associated with a practical absence of wars, while it is noticeable that the spread of dictatorships, for example, correlates with an increase and spread of wars.
However, social marginalization and decline of the society, the consequential withering of humanity in the age of artificial intelligence, is not inevitable with the widespread emergence of modern dictatorships, if certain sustainability rules can be enforced in the functioning of authoritarian systems.
Authoritarian regimes obviously have the opportunity to exploit the society under their rule, and indeed, until the widespread use of artificial intelligence, it is primarily the exploitation of the governed society that provides dictatorships with greater potential for action. However, harmful exploitation of society is not necessary even in authoritarian regimes. Dictatorial systems themselves can also recognize the potential of greater capacity created by the development of society instead of exploitation. Obviously, a developing society also poses a greater risk to authoritarianism, which must be controlled for the sake of its stability, yet an efficient authoritarian system can carry a stable, growing society as a trophy of its sustainability, serving as a demonstration of its successful functioning. A reasonably functioning autocracy, in a manner suitable for itself, still supports the society under its rule.
In dictatorial systems, social stability can only be ensured as long as social control, including the suppression of dissenting thinkers, can be reliably enforced, and/or the progress of development ensures societal satisfaction. However, even in the case of increasing social tensions, at least as long as there is no feasible, real democratic alternative, violent social opposition to the autocratic system is pointless, because typically, despite significant societal upheaval that could progress to change, real change in social relations would not occur. Revolutions, in the absence of a realistically functioning alternative, typically at most induce, rather than result in, the development of social systems, but most often they lead to even more oppressive regression.
Established autocracies can typically only be ended by total societal collapse, but even that is only possible as long as society still has real effect in the upheaval of the dictatorship. With the spread of artificial intelligence, society's contribution to the prevalence of dictatorships also decreases. The primary goal that autocracies need to achieve for their sustainable existence is to reduce the societal contribution to their power, which, especially through the proliferation of artificial intelligence, is increasingly possible and achievable. The result of this process is the widespread reappearance of dictatorships existing more and more typically without the influence of the society under their rule, and the mutual coexistence of these authoritarian regimes with each other.
The global change toward this state is further supported by the reinforcing reaction toward each other to effect the possible change, which poses a real danger for authoritarian regimes, namely if democratic principles are able to take place and function successfully in societies. The only inherent function of autocracies manifested in cooperation and appearing as a naturally occurring mutual support is the collaboration in the face of a common threat, which can appear in the form of mutual help of suppression and control of societies that might shift toward democracy, opposing societal change, and helping each other in the maintenance of their autocracies.
Besides this, the coexistence of dictatorships lacking democratic principles is fundamentally based on rivalry, of which the defining foundation is potential. A dictatorship can assert its will over other societies to a greater extent the more potential it possesses. Unlike democracies, the increase in the potential of dictatorships is not an inherent process, even with the application of artificial intelligence; lacking inherent cooperative behavior existing inside, dictatorships typically tend more naturally toward a decrease in potential. Therefore, the growth of potential can primarily be achieved through extending rule over each other, or forming alliances, which, due to the nature of dictatorships, are inherently unstable and extend only as far as the actually prevailing interests.
Obviously, it is not in the interest of reasonably functioning autocracies to destroy each other in a way that also endangers themselves. Autocracies ultimately are also doomed to cooperate, which, due to the nature of their existence, can appear for dictatorships with greater potential means by increasing influence over others with lesser potential, for dictatorships with lesser potential means by complying with dictatorships with greater potential, and in the form of utilizing the greater potential created by temporal alliances with each other. This can be the method and form of a cooperation resulting in their prevailing survival that leads to the union of dictatorships, although its actual success can also be significantly influenced by the personalities of the leaders of the respective dictatorships. Cooperation between dictatorships, even despite adhering to the required forms of cooperation, is risky and fragile, and in practice does not seem sustainable over the long term.
Even with this kind of supposedly sustainable unification, if the future of human societies is doomed to follow the fate of cooperating autocracies, it will inevitably shift toward the degeneration of humanity, the consequence of which could be the extinction of the human race. The potential for the eternal life of human society can only be ensured by the development of a democratic direction. However, this would require the complete replacement of our natural evolutionary heritage that leads to autocracy—our instincts ensuring individual self-preservation—with intentions that enable cooperation, which does not seem like an achievable task at all, yet the future of humanity may depend on it.
No comments