Paradoxes of democracy

The Dutch National Liberation Monument in Wageningen, Netherlands (detail)

In footnote 4 to chapter 7 of his “The Open Society and Its Enemies” Karl R. Popper mentions three paradoxes typical for democratic states: the paradox of freedom, the paradox of tolerance and the paradox of democracy. The paradox of freedom is, so Popper, “the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.” This paradox is often solved – which is not discussed here by Popper – by the rule that the freedom of one ends where that of the other is affected. The paradox of tolerance involves, so Popper, that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and the tolerance with them.” Popper doesn’t say that we must always suppress intolerant expressions, but we must keep the right to do so. However, Popper is vague about how far the tolerance of intolerance goes. I would say that at least it goes not further than where intolerance affects, if not harms, the basic rights of others or threats to do so; to begin with rights like the inviolability of life and body and other human rights. The third paradox Popper mentions is the paradox of democracy or rather, so Popper, “majority rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule.”
I think that the essence of these paradoxes is the question of respect for the other: Freedom, tolerance and democracy end if others, especially minorities, are not respected. This requires an idea of equality between people and a protection of minority rights and the rights of those who think differently. This is not always easy, however, if we think of, for example, the just mentioned problem of tolerating intolerance. Anyhow, I think that from a political point of view, the paradox of democracy problem is fundamental, since it involves the paradoxes of freedom and tolerance. It is no wonder then that politically Poppers sees the solution in the right institutional structures: “We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public.” Etc. Then “all these paradoxes can be easily avoided…”, so Popper. Easily? I wished it were true, for when we look at what is happening in the world today, we see something else. With more or less enthusiasm, people in this world vote for intolerant and undemocratic leaders that suppress freedom (leaders who, once in power, often succeed to manipulate the next elections that way that they are re-elected again and again). These leaders legally and illegally undermine the freedom of expression either directly, for instance by putting down those who verbally attack them and who by doing so affect their power, (“you are a foreign agent”); or they undermine the freedom of expression indirectly, for instance by making access to the public media for their critics increasingly difficult. if not by using worse means. Minority rights are restricted as well. Opponents, whose only “crime” is that they belong to another political party are threatened with violence. Nevertheless people vote for such leaders. Will you be the next victim? As I read in UN News: “More than 60 elections are taking place in 2024 and, whilst 90 per cent of people say they want to live in a democracy, many are voting for people and systems that are restricting their rights. The UN has expressed concern about this ‘democracy paradox’, and that fact that some governments and governance systems are becoming increasingly repressive.” Democracy is not that easy.