The Veil of Democracy

 Elon Musk caused a stir yesterday with his suggestion of a simple peace compromise between Ukraine and Russia.  Apparently the advocacy of peaceful resolution to brutal war makes him a Putin-lover, and a racist and of course a traitor and also Trump.

Regardless of one’s opinions on the brief proposal, it was well within the bounds of “reasonable thought.” But apparently not; the backlash focused on his suggestion that the several eastern regions which Russia has now “annexed” hold a UN-supervised vote to see if indeed the people wish to live under Russian or Ukrainian rule. 

After this controversy blew up, Elon posted the above tweet with the simple clarifying question, to paraphrase, “should the people of Donbas get to vote for their ruler?”

This is a fascinating question.

It’s fascinating because in one brief tweet, Elon inadvertently (?) exposed an uncomfortable moral conundrum: Does the West actually believe in Democracy?

If no—if those of these regions shouldn’t be permitted to vote (again, supervised by a neutral-enough 3rd party), then upon what moral foundation are Western societies actually based? Clearly not the consent of the governed, it seems.

The main counterargument seems to be, “if we let such a vote happen, what’s to stop various nations from invading neighbors and rolling the dice on a vote?”

How often would that actually succeed as a strategy? Mexico invades Texas and then a vote is held and Texans choose to join Mexico? I doubt it. Usually, an invasion would reduce support from the local populace, because, you know, all the indiscriminate killing and murder.

But zooming out from these specific objections, Elon’s tweet was fascinating because it revealed how distasteful most advocates of democracy actually find democracy.

The idea that any contiguous region with a majority of unified support could vote to leave its parent government is flatly rejected by essentially all modern advocates of democracy. Interesting, right?

An observer might conclude that popular Western society is rather based only on a superficial veil of democracy; a virtuous totem more than a foundational principle of social organization and governance. Democracy when it suits us, but not otherwise. One might reflect on the unelected EU President Ursula von Der Leyen’s recent comments regarding Italy’s too-far-right election of Giorgia Meloni as emblematic of this theme.

Indeed the shallowness of Western democratic fidelity is obvious. People do not actually believe in the sanctity of popular vote. If they did, it would mean any sufficient population of a region could hold a vote, periodically, and insofar as they achieved a majority in said vote, could secede and form a new state, quite as easily as a referendum on a local ballot.

If Democracy was truly permitted, there are probably some regions of Texas and rural Northern California that would secede from the US. Probably Catalonia from Spain. Perhaps a portion of Quebec? Perhaps Northern Ireland? Pockets of the American Redoubt? Maybe London would secede and join the EU and certainly portions of the EU would secede upon their own votes for independence.

All that Democracy would be way too much to handle. Yet these kinds of democratic expressions don’t really occur at all, do they? They aren’t permitted.

If Democracy matters, why can a state not leave its parent nation with relative ease? Why can a city not leave its parent state? If Democracy matters, why can a neighborhood not become independent of its neighbors?

Ponder it and realize that Democracy—the “consent of the governed”—is a shallow veil indeed.

If Democracy does not include relative ease of exit, then is it any more than a cozy story we tell ourselves about why our society is just? We stand for Democracy!  Oh, do you?

If the West values Democracy, then Elon’s suggestion of Eastern Ukraine territories voting under Western supervision is not just reasonable, but downright saintly in its adherence to self-governance. Where is the “liberal” support of Democracy in this instance?

Let’s be real. The reason nobody respectable in the West can advocate a proper open vote in specific contentious territories is because it would open Pandora’s box.  Just imagine it! If we accept that Donetsk has the right to self-determination, then where does it end?

The unwritten (or perhaps sometimes written?) rule of modern Democracies is that people may vote for anything so long as it’s not for independence.  Much better to enforce its opposite: dependence; dependence on the governor, dependence on the state, dependence on the nation and on the supranational. Support the nation first, and, weather permitting, support Democracy.

Independence (aka secession) is arguably the ultimate expression of the democratic ideal, and yet it is forbidden in every Western Democracy.

So no, Elon, the people shall not be permitted a vote. That would be highly undemocratic.