Right-wing populists are on the rise in both the US and in Europe and are becoming a threat to democracy. Do we need a “rule of the knowers”? This is at least the measure that the American political scientist Jason Brennan calls for. Here are his reasons.

This interview by Philipp Löpfe was originally published in German in Watson on 19.11.2023. Translated and edited for layout purposes by the UBS Center.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, said after defeating the English, “You have a republic now – if you can keep it.” This quote is used today to illustrate the danger to modern American democracy. Do you share this fear?

It is true that many people are currently uneasy about democracy and yearning for a strong man. The populist movements that we see around the world are described as a threat to democracy. This seems odd at first sight, because it is the populists who see themselves as the true democrats, fighting against an elite that is far removed from the interests of the ordinary people.

In the introduction to the paperback edition of your book Against Democracy, you write that Donald Trump is not a threat to American democracy. That was 2017. Do you still share that view today?

I am very critical of Trump. He tried to undermine democracy on January 6, 2021. But the system survived.

At the moment, however, he seems to have a good chance of returning to the White House.

The system nevertheless withstood a severe shock, a kind of stress test. This makes me optimistic for the future because nothing has actually changed.

The rhetoric, at least, has changed dramatically. Today, Trump speaks of “revenge” and “retribution”. He calls his opponents “vermin”, and wants to prosecute anyone who claims to have harmed him. This includes even former associates such as Chief of Staff John Kelly or Secretary of Justice William Barr.

Indeed, his rhetoric has changed for the worse. But it began before Trump. Today, one side of the political spectrum regards the other as illegitimate. As a result, neither Republicans nor Democrats accept defeat.

However, the Democrats have not yet attempted a coup.

True. But American politics has never been particularly peaceful. Historically, it has usually been the case that the loser has challenged other party’s victory.

Even the founding fathers, as we all know, hated each others’ guts.

Oh yes. It was only after the Second World War that there were a couple of decades in which the two parties dealt with each other civilly. That is why we can also say that the current situation in American politics is no exception, it is the rule.

Parents were once horrified when their children married a partner of a different religion or skin color. Today, it is horrified when they choose a partner of the other party.

Indeed, that is true. But this should not be blamed on Trump alone. This development began before him.

You are a well-known critic of democracy, but for different reasons. Your main argument is that most people are simply too stupid for democracy. Can you sum it up like that?

Stupidity is not the right word. People are basically capable of organizing themselves democratically. But in the current system, they have the wrong incentives. They have the feeling that their voice is so insignificant that they see it only as a symbol. That is why they do not bother to inform themselves.

What are the consequences?

In the United States at least, sympathy for a political party is akin to sympathy for a sports club. In short, politics in the United States is no longer about debating political content. I’m from the Boston area, and I’m a fan of the New England Patriots, a football team. They’ve dominated the league for 20 years, and this year they’re playing miserably. And yet, I’m part of a Facebook group where we’re comforting each other and saying, “Everything’s going to be okay.” It’s a completely irrational way to behave, but if you don’t participate, you’re left out.

As a battered FCZ Zurich Soccer Club fan, I know what you are talking about.

As a fan, you have to act irrationally if you want to remain a member of the group. We have to question a decision of the referee against our team, even if it is obvious that he acted correctly. As in sports, we have the same problem in politics. For example, if Trump says something that is obviously idiotic, then as a Republican I still have to agree or I will be left out. The same can be seen in extreme form in totalitarian states. Anyone who disagreed with Stalin in the USSR lived a very dangerous life.

In a democracy, however, we have freedom of expression.

But if the individual voice has only symbolic value, or at least is perceived as such, then there is a risk that that voice will no longer be used to improve the government, but that it will be used to outline oneself as a fan of a party.

Nevertheless, I would like to read you a quote from your book. It says: “Most of my fellow citizens are incompetent, ignorant, irrational, and immoral when it comes to politics. Yet they can impose their political will on me.” That sounds a bit elitist, doesn’t it?

I do not mean to say that I am smarter than the average citizen and therefore I am allowed to rule over him.

What do you mean by that?

That anyone who holds an office and thus also has power should prove that they are competent to do so.

You divide the electorate into three groups, hobbits, hooligans, and Vulcans. Can you explain that briefly?

In Lord of the Rings, the hobbits are the ones who do not care about what is happening in middle earth. They live their simple lives and do not care about politics.

But they become hooligans when times get tougher. What does that mean?

Hooligans are well informed, but they interpret everything in favor of their team. They are zealots and they want their team to win at all costs. In the United States today, most people are hooligans. They surround themselves with people who share their opinions and have no trouble changing their minds overnight.

Do you have an example of that?

Republicans were traditionally in favor of free trade. Trump, on the other hand, is a protectionist. Now most Republicans have become protectionists as well. When you talk to them, they say, “What are you talking about? I’ve always been a protectionist.” Again, to compare it to sports, if a player changes clubs, the fans’ perception changes. The greatest player of all time can turn into a player who’s always been overrated.

After all, what do you have to imagine under a Vulcan?

They are a kind of ideal type. They adhere strictly to the facts and are not prejudiced. In theory, all enlightened citizens should behave like Vulcans, in practice they behave like hobbits or hooligans.

They want to solve this problem with an epistocracy, a rule of the knowers. How is that going to work?

For me, democracy is not an end in itself, but an instrument, like a hammer. If there is a better instrument, then we should use it.

Winston Churchill once said: Democracy is the worst of all forms of government – except for all others. Is that no longer true?

Yes, it still applies. Nevertheless, there are ways to optimize democracy, for example with elements from an epistocracy.

What does this mean in practice?

In general, we will not tamper with the institutions of democracy. But I would like to add something that I call “enlightened preference voting”. That means everyone is allowed to vote on election day, but they first have to declare who they are and what they want. And they have to answer a series of questions, say 30 questions. So we can gradually filter out what the voters really want.

Oh, that sounds very complicated. What do you expect from it?

Take Brexit. I am not saying that Brexit was a bad thing in itself. But at the same time, I am convinced that the British would have made a different decision if they had been better informed. If they had known, for example, how much money is being sent to Brussels, how many immigrants are in the population, and so on.

So you want to test the voters before they are allowed to go to the polls?

In some ways, yes. Take another example: most Americans believe that Mexican crime is significantly higher than that of resident Americans, meaning that they vehemently oppose immigration. Immigrant crime is, however, only one-third of that of the resident populace.

These tests can also be abused, however. In the Jim Crow era, when black democratic rights were suppressed in the US, these tests were used.

The problem was not the tests themselves, but that only blacks had to take them. If whites had had to take the test, paradoxically, the result would probably have been that the Jim Crow laws would have been abolished much sooner, because the majority of those who had passed the test would have voted to repeal them. Today, in the US, only the a person who wants to become a naturalized citizen has to take the test. Many American-born people would hardly pass the test.

This also applies to Switzerland.

Exactly. So why do we not require everyone to take such a test?

We in Switzerland have had a well-functioning democracy for 175 years, especially since the right of initiative and referendum was introduced. The Swiss are probably not fundamentally smarter than the Americans. So why does the US not introduce direct democracy?

I know the problem. Switzerland is always referred to as a model, even when I am not in Switzerland. What makes Switzerland better? Is it the size of the country? Is it the different languages? None of these answers are clear. Belgium has different languages, and the system does not work. In California, we also have a kind of direct democracy, and it does not work. Why it works in Switzerland is an unanswered question in political science, and I certainly do not know the answer.

Let’s return to the question of epistocracy. Authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orbán are likely to support it, having what they call a “managed democracy”.

Russia is doing very poorly; this “managed democracy” does not seem to work very well. Authoritarian leaders want to legitimize themselves and resort to whatever means they can. But the Putin system has nothing in common with what I understand as an epistocracy. When power is in the hands of a few, they abuse that power for selfish ends. Putin is very adept at asserting his own interests. He has been in power for a long time and is probably the richest man in the world.

The Washington Post’s motto is: “Democracy dies when it goes dark”. Do you think this is the case?

It’s a nice sentence, but I’d put it differently.

What’s that?

“Democracy dies in the fire.” People reject democracy when society goes into crisis. Just think of what happened during the pandemic. Around the globe, even in democratic nations, emergency laws were invoked overnight, and governments enforced measures that lacked democratic legitimacy. Many of these measures would later prove to be miscalculations, such as closing schools.

This can be seen in hindsight, but at the time it was far from obvious.

And yet, even people like me who are critical of democracy have asked themselves, “Hey, what about the rule of law?” But what I want to stress is that democracies collapse in times of crisis. The demise of the Weimar Republic and the rise of fascism are the most telling examples of this. I thus find the saying that democracy dies in the dark misleading. It doesn’t just disappear from the stage. Democracy dies in a fireball.

Jason Brennan’s appearance was part of a three-part series of events organized by the UBS Center for Economics in Society under the theme Democracies under threat. The series was kicked-off with Wolfgang Schäuble's lecture on 24 October at Universität Zürich. He is a German CDU politician, former Finance Minister, and the longest-serving member of the German Bundestag. Steven Pinker’s lecture followed at Universität Zürich on 7 November. The psychologist and bestselling author talked about rationality and its significance for liberal democracy. The highlight of the series was the annual Forum for Economic Dialogue on 13 November at the Kongresshaus Zürich, where the topic 'Democracies under threat' was examined and discussed with Nobel Prize laureate Herta Müller, democracy experts Jason Brennan and Daniel Ziblatt, and many other speakers.