Jack Lane

Politicians   and Governments in  the West are becoming and more beholden to the  ‘markets’ as to  how their policies are to be made and  judged, particularly by  the financial markets.  The same politicians are those who have given more power to the financial markets by making central banks independent —which for the vast majority of people means the responsibility  they are given to set interest rates. 

One of Trump’s  new assaults on the ‘rules based order’ is to counter this and give responsibility  back to Governments for this crucial aspect of economic life.  It has been met with howls of anger and incredulity that  such a thing should even be considered.

A recent outburst has come from the European Social Democratic think-tank on the EU, ‘Social Europe’,and the argument is made on very curious, and very interesting,  grounds. 

It is   what a contributor calls the  “51 percent fallacy”   about Democracy, ie:

“This conception of democracy lies at the heart of contemporary populist illiberalism:  whoever secures 51 per cent of the vote possesses all rights.  Such leaders feel entitled to imprison their enemies, silence critics, rewrite  the rules of the game as they see fit, pardon friends caught with their hands in the till or, worse still, those who stormed the nation’s parliament”

and he concludes that—

“The person who won 51 per cent of the vote does not—and should not—have all the rights”  (Why the Left should defend Central bank independence, ‘Social  Europe,’ by  Guillaume Duval, 26.1.2026—who is adviser to the great and the good in the EU!)

Duval’s case assumes that only bankers can be trusted with behaving properly in administering Finance, which is such a crucial element of society.  Otherwise, the Democracy and their Governments are inevitably liable to succumb to the temptation to abuse money by printing too much of it to satisfy  the whims of  the electorates and thereby cause inflation, which is the road to ruin!  The author elaborates on this thesis at some length. 

The basic message is that the Democracy is not to be trusted:  however, just one element in the democracy, bankers, can  be regarded as sensible, rational etc., etc.  This is akin to regarding the military as the best authority on War!

This view poses some serious questions about how society can be run if the Democracy cannot be trusted—which, of course, we are constantly told is self-evidently the only way on  which society should be run:  and even  world wars can be contemplated to ensure it does. 

This ‘conception’ leads to an inevitable conclusion that too much democracy can be a very bad thing:  if  it is  based on 51% of votes—or even a greater percentage.  On this logic:  more democracy is worse  again:  as it becomes an ever greater expression of “populist illiberalism“—which is equated nowadays with fascism or worse.  

Where is the dividing line to be drawn between ‘acceptable’ democracy and this democratic illiberalism leading to God knows what?  And who is to decide?  As democracy is promoted as so evidently a good thing, ever more democracy  should be better again rather than  worse. This would mean a 100% vote for a government would make it totalitarian:  and the opposite of Democracy as understood. Democracy leading to Totalitarianism?

  For example, one question this conundrum poses:  where does this leave minority governments?  It could mean they are a very good thing, if the right people are in charge.  But how much of a minority should they be to qualify as the best type of government?  And again, who decides  on this?

And this comes to the crux of the issue—it is really all about who is entitled to run society for society’s own best interests if voting is not reliable for the purpose!

The problem arises when government of society is regarded as a scientific matter.  In this case a mathematical matter.  Mathematically, more is better than less:  because it is more, it is bigger.  But, as the  author rightly says:  in his view more can be worse than less on the issue that matters to him.  

But again where is the dividing line for being less, and  therefore better, to be drawn?  And, again, who is to decide?

It is a real problem but an insoluble one from a scientific/mathematical  view of  society.  

The fact is society, and its human content, are not scientific/mathematical entities—they are organic living entities  and their functioning is  governed by  laws unto themselves and certainly  not by simple maths.

      In this situation, politicians have to make it up as they along:  and hopefully a leader with the virtues of Plato’s “philosopher king” will occasionally arise, as does a black swan!

Jack Lane