Michael Anissimov

In one sense, the aim of this book is rather modest: to challenge the reader to consider the viability of alternative forms of government to liberal democracy. In another sense, even openness to that consideration is controversial given the extent to which western society has deeply imbibed (and been indoctrinated in) the 'obvious' superiority of democratic governance.

The arguments against democracy are clearly and succinctly laid out here, and are persuasive. Anissimov consciously limits the arguments to the realm of the empirical, eschewing more "values-based" approaches to the question. This approach is attractive in that it can, in theory, appeal to a broad range of interested and persuadable parties.

The drawback of this approach is that it results in a somewhat Marxist approach to history, wherein all social causation is approached from the vantage of the material -- chiefly evolutionary and economic. As a Christian theocratic traditionalist, spiritual or theological causation is always primary, and so this approach results in some lacunae, from my perspective. This is not a fault of the author, as he has intentionally limited himself in such a way to make room for such perspectives, but in my view the case for alternative forms of government (chiefly monarchical) is more persuasively made when the specific role of the Church is explicated.

The arguments themselves are compelling and engagingly written. Among them the fact that, in a democracy there are low incentives for government officials to take the long-view on sound governance, and so their policies trend toward short-term expediency and pandering. They thus accumulate debt that no individual is responsible for. Whereas a king -- even a selfish one -- has incentive to pursue long-term goals, and govern well, as he himself stands to lose if he accumulates too much debt, or otherwise fails.

It also lays out the case that 'inequality' is a function of liberty, as opposed to the popular view that liberty and equality are partners. Liberty means the liberty to succeed and outperform, and ascend to particular social strata that others may not reach. The case is further made that such 'inequality' is natural and that societies function better when there are not artificial attempts made to 'undo' it.

The foolhardy pursuit of 'equality' is a primary cause of many social and economic ills in liberal democracy. I agree that inequality is an immutable fact of the 'natural' order today. But here is another place where I think a spiritual dimension could aid the case. According to Christian teaching, the world as we encounter it is *not* currently existing 'according to its nature' (naturally), but is rather fallen. With this in mind, the case for monarchical government -- as well as the case for developing the virtuous institutions and culture that could allow it to flourish -- could be made in an appropriately conservative manner: as the best of various fallen options, with the 'society' of the Christian Church being the true eschatalogical society all are called to, which appears in history in the midst of the broader society. This doesn't cut against the case for authoritarian, hierarchical government, but rather aids it, as hierarchy itself is explicitly not a result of the fall, but is part of the natural (in the true sense) created order.

Qualms aside, I highly recommend the book if you're interested in a fairly breezy tour of the arguments against democracy, from a neoreactionary perspective.… (plus d'informations)