Rationality and Political Passions: Does Technocracy Oppose Democracy?

Introduction

Modern political history alternates between, on the one hand, citizens' distrust of the partisan political system and its representatives (the elected officials), increasingly perceived as a source of impotence, particularly in the face of globalization, and seeming to find merits in a technocracy imbued with a sense of public good and freed from political contingencies, and, on the other hand, the rejection or even "democratic revolt" against technocratic elites accused of undermining democracy by imposing an order beyond the control of elected bodies, as recently demonstrated by the example of Brexit.

The Emergence of Technocracy

Today, a negatively connoted term, technocracy emerged as an idea in the 19th century with Auguste Comte's positivism: "technocracy is a scientific government aimed at the flourishing of each citizen." The term itself appeared in the 1920s and in the 1930s referred to a political movement led mainly by American engineers, who, at the height of the Great Depression, advocated the reformation of political and economic systems based on rigorous scientific principles and methods. However, it should be noted that decision-makers have always relied on the advice of experts, particularly in areas related to war, economic and financial administration, and the organization of justice or agricultural production.

Historical Perspectives on Technocracy

Already in ancient Greece, Plato proposed that the government be entrusted to philosophers, arguing that they, being skilled in complex reasoning and the manipulation of logic, would be best able to make enlightened decisions in the interest of their City. In this, one can see an early form of technocracy. Plato even argued that the people do not truly know what is good for them and therefore need to be governed by the expert who does.

In the 16th century, the philosopher Francis Bacon, in his utopia "The New Atlantis," proposed that a college of scholars, with their clarity of mind forged by knowledge of the mechanisms of nature and the technical means to master it, advise the government to ensure the nation's wealth and power.

Technocracy in Contemporary Societies

In our contemporary societies, it is clear that the inextricable complexity of reality, fueled by globalization and scientific and technological progress, inevitably pushes politicians to gravitate around scientific and technical elites, seeking from them keys to understanding and levers to act rationally on reality.

Challenges of Technocratic Legitimacy

But this legitimate use of expertise faces a legitimacy deficit coupled with a suspicion of collusion between politicians and high-ranking officials and other experts who sometimes give the impression of using complexity as a means to retain power and confine it within an elite of members from the same social backgrounds, who co-opt each other without ever being accountable to the people. Because we live in a complex world, political choices should remain in the hands of an elite trained in complexity and capable of making decisions alone for the people. Consequently, the expert's opinion is no longer taken at face value by citizens.

Demands for Democratic Participation

Called upon to take their destinies into their own hands, people demand from experts and elites the right to be informed, consulted, and above all the right to express their opinions on all political issues. However, experts and sometimes the politicians they surround and advise simply give the impression that they consider the people incompetent and incapable of political opinion on the major issues affecting the modern world (in this, they are the worthy heirs of Voltaire, who reserved the exercise of power for an enlightened elite). By wanting to convince without having to debate, politicians thus exempt themselves from taking certain responsibilities, proclaiming obligations of choices imposed by experts or by administrative or financial processes.

Conflicts of Interest and Transparency

Beyond this question of legitimacy, another reason for the rise of distrust towards experts is the multiplication of cases of conflicts of interest, and more generally the opacity of relations between political decision-makers and commercial lobbies. Unsurprisingly, the highly regulated sectors, where political power is therefore most prevalent, are the most affected: Health and the pharmaceutical industry, Transport, Energy and mineral resources… but no sector is left out.

Reconciling Political Debate and Expertise

How then to (re)concile political debate and indispensable expertise? First, fight against the sources of distrust towards technocracy: 1) transparency in the articulation between political decision and action and its legitimization by expert knowledge, 2) disseminate scientific and technical knowledge and explain its limits, its areas of uncertainty, and 3) break the monopoly of the discourse of the "official technostructure" and establish "counter-expertise" organized by civil society. And this to save the essential mission of state technocracy: to civilize collective passions through the use of Reason.