“Representation is Theft!” is a bi-weekly column critiquing electoral democracy and advocating for lottery-based sortition as a viable alternative.
Recently, Democrats enforced their party line with one of their most blatantly unsportsmanlike actions to date. An isolated committee within the Minnesota Democratic Party, motivated by flimsy accusations of voter fraud and faulty voting machines, unceremoniously revoked the party’s nomination of Omar Fateh, a self-declared democratic socialist, for the mayorship of Minneapolis. This is just one example of many; as progressives and socialists throughout the country seek to steer Democrats in a more left-wing direction to combat Donald Trump’s crackdown on political opposition, the party establishment seems more adamant on stopping this left-wing rise than stopping Trump.
With all of this in mind, we must ask: why do the Democrats invest so much into suppressing their progressive wing, even when it harms their ability to win elections? How can the “big tent” of the Democrats include right-wing instigators but not popular leftists? Why can the Democrats never be as energetic as the Republicans, even as Trump seeks to guide the United States into autocracy? These phenomena are all due to a simple truth: the Democrats do not intend to resist the fall of democracy. They are actively embracing it, hoping that even with the rise of fascism, they can maintain their shared power over the government alongside Republicans. Their “hidden coalition” will always be the priority, for it is this that gives our political elite control of the state, regardless of whether it becomes more fascist.
To elaborate on these hidden coalitions, I must cover what it means for an ideology to gain control over government in the first place. The primary objective of all parties, in order to implement their ideology, is the appropriation of state apparatuses. Louis Althusser famously defined this concept: “repressive” state apparatuses (administration, law enforcement, courts) enable the state to enforce itself through violent means, while “ideological” state apparatuses influenced by the government (press, academia, popular culture) justify those violent means. Through winning elections, parties appropriate state apparatuses, in turn appropriating the state’s monopoly on violence and enforcing the policies they see fit.
Such an enterprise inevitably pits a party against rival groups, driving it to pursue total victory by any means, regardless of how “unfair” one considers them. We would expect this behavior to be the default; playing nice with the enemy is usually not a winning strategy. However, if playing nice is detrimental to a party’s core mission, then how do some representative “democracies” peacefully change hands between multiple parties? The reason is that their parties are within similar ideological circles, or at least similar enough in beliefs and aesthetics. When these parties split control, none of them need to monopolize power over state apparatuses. They have already achieved monopoly among themselves, participating in friendly competition while blocking all outside groups from directly challenging the beliefs shared among ruling groups. This phenomenon is the backbone of any hidden coalition, which is itself the backbone of any stable representative “democracy.”
The American party system is an infamous example of this. In the past, the Democrats and Republicans were within the same ideological circles, sharing beliefs and aesthetics: vocal anti-socialism, laissez-faire economies, military interventionism, sympathy to European neo-colonialism, unabated globalism, and distrust of America’s minorities. Of course, the two parties disagreed on plenty, but they were still ideologically close enough so that “unfair” fighting was considered unnecessary. Both parties knew that not much would change fundamentally if the opposition took power. However, the introduction of Trumpism has jeopardized this hidden coalition. Trump’s far-right ideology breaks three “agreements” of this concord in particular; he challenges earlier ideas about globalism, hesitates to lend support to America’s historical allies (except Israel), and expands earlier hatred of cultural minorities beyond past constraints. Simply put, the hidden coalition is no longer useful to Republican interests.
This weakening of this concord is causing the Republicans to adopt particular “unfair” strategies in politics for electoral and ideological gains—no longer interested in sharing a monopoly on state violence. From the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Attack, to rejecting court orders, to seeking to arrest political opponents, to misusing funds allocated by Congress, the Republicans have engaged in strategies unthinkable in the past. In a functioning hidden coalition, the party only needs to use its full might against groups outside of the agreement, as it has already achieved a monopoly over state apparatuses in conjunction with its allies. However, now that the Republicans feel that they cannot share this monopoly without compromising their ideological vision, they feel free to use their full might against Democrats.
If this is the case, then why are the Democrats not holding back against the Republicans as well? Why do the Democrats still play nice with their Republican counterparts even as that is no longer the case vice versa? Clearly, the party still values the benefits of a “non-dramatic” political order associated with hidden coalitions. The Democrats have helped implement the wishes of the ruling classes along with the Republicans for decades. The party believes that, with some tweaks to a few beliefs and aesthetics, it can still defend its interests and enjoy the political power that comes with it. The Democrats’ neoliberal ideology lacks the political zeal required to beat Trump’s populism in all-out political rivalry, so they seek to adopt parts of it in hopes of continuing their hidden coalition while not embracing the anti-capitalist politics that their establishment and donors fear.
To rebuild a hidden coalition, it’s necessary for the political groups involved to become closer in ideology and aesthetics. Since the Republicans are unwilling to do this amidst their rocketing into fascism, the Democrats have taken the initiative, seeking to move further to the right. One form this takes is the party’s deepening pro-Israel politics; because Israel is one of the few American allies the Republicans are willing to support outright, the Democrats have leaped onto this as a shared ideal, defending the Gaza genocide while purging themselves of sympathizers to Palestine’s plight. They have also abandoned leftists, seeing pro-labor politics as threatening the rapprochement between Democrats and Republicans; this explains why the party was so eager to revoke Fateh’s nomination and politically isolate Mamdani. The Democrats do not intend to fight against Trump’s fascism, but instead wish to partially submit to it, begging to rebuild their hidden coalition like a misguided lover begging to win back their toxic ex-partner. Meanwhile, the party that claims to protect everyday people actively threatened by society’s ills casually abandons them.
And after all of this analysis of how the “better of the two” will always sell out the society that it seeks to shape through its hidden coalition, we must ask ourselves: Is there any way out of this? Can we find rulers who would not sacrifice us for the chance to hold a monopoly on state apparatuses, and in turn, a monopoly on violence? Popular socialists like Mamdani and Fateh claim that they would use the state more benevolently than standard politicians, and they probably would. However, once the old political warriors lose their touch, will too the new Democrats? And if right-wing opposition were to rise once more, will a new hidden coalition emerge? No matter how well-intentioned, elected politicians will always prioritize their monopoly on violence. As long as there are elections, there will be a legitimized means for political groups to appropriate the state apparatus’ monopoly on violence. As long as this can occur, there will be a political elite isolated from its citizenry’s tangible needs. Although I will defend them, electing democratic socialists like Mamdani and Fateh cannot be our end goal.
Our end goal should be the end of this monopoly on violence itself, depriving parties and other vectors of the elite of anything to appropriate in the first place. While many past thinkers have formulated vague ideas on how this would occur, we know that, to end a monopoly over something, you must maximize the number of people who have access to that thing. Control over state apparatuses should not be limited to sociopolitically isolated “philosopher kings” of privileged backgrounds whom we let rule us under the false promise that they will “represent” us; in truth, we do not need representation! Every person should have the chance to bypass the middleman and serve in the state, a societal obligation that should be as standardized as jury duty or taxation. Every person should have the chance to sit at the table like our “representatives” currently do, selected through random lottery, so that every iteration of government is an accurate reflection of society. In a single word: sortition.
Through this, the needs of the people will no longer be diluted out of consideration, and common-sense reforms will be implemented that the political elite could never implement out of their own self-interests. It is, perhaps, an answer to our collective political alienation. For when the monopoly on power includes everyone, it includes no one, for the state is no longer a monopoly to be enjoyed by the few, no matter who those few may be.
