Anarchy/ism and Democracy

This paper is a conceptual analysis of anarchy/ism and democracy, the aim of which is to assess the compatibility between the two concepts. By conceptually outlining anarchism and the history of democracy as a word, the paper presents that both anarchism and democracy, in its radical form, attempt to achieve self-government in the end. It submits 'radical democracy' as a nuanced, reconciling bridge between the two concepts to that aim. From the perspective of the models of democracy, radical democracy is seen as a mix of the 'best' features of the participatory and deliberative frameworks. Connected to this above all is the literature content of Charles D. Lummis (1996) and Lincoln Dahlberg (2012) on the topic of radical democracy. The anarchist scholarship is divided regarding the compatibility between anarchy/ism and democracy. The pro-democracy arguments are often reduced to viewing anarchism as radical democracy without the state in the likes of David Graeber or Wayne Price. The anti-democrats purvey democracy as another form of rule requiring abolishment (Markus Lundström, William Gillis). Inspired by the perspective of Amadeo Bertolo and Laurence Davis, the author is of the position that anarchism is the most radical form of democracy while anarchy goes beyond it. In outlining radical democracy's three main characteristics - (i) maintaining political power among the people, (ii) radical extension of equality and liberty, (iii) challenging oppressive power relationships - the rest of the chapter reviews anarchist anti-democratic arguments presented in the written Mutual Exchange Symposium, titled 'Anarchy & Democracy', organised and published by the Centre for a Stateless Society in 2017, (second edition published in 2020). In doing so I offer three main, novel, a priori arguments in favour of the pro-democracy camp on the level of theory by elaborating on the aforementioned characteristics: (i) Radical democracy is about radically extending equality and liberty, which means that, to stay a radical democracy, the decisions that are collectively made should be self-reinforcive of the two and not diminutive in any way as that would be counterintuitive. (ii) One of the definitions of radical democracy mentions challenging oppressive power relationships, which should make majoritarianism, or tyranny of the majority, also counterintuitive to radical democracy. (iii) Stemming from the two, radical democracy is about radical inclusion and giving priority to those most affected by the collective decisions made. (iv) Any envisioned anarchist society described by the anti-democratic anarchists can fit the desired imaginary held by the pro-democrats using a different language. As such, the key and principal premise is that radical democracy acts as a kind of bridge in the form of self-overcoming democracy into anarchy.