Anarchyism and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis

Abstract

This paper is a conceptual analysis of anarchy/ism and democracy, the aim of which is to assess the compatibility between the two concepts. By conceptually outlining anarchism and the history of democracy as a word, the paper presents that both anarchism and democracy, in its radical form, attempt to achieve self-government. It submits 'radical democracy' as a nuanced, reconciling bridge between the two concepts to that aim. From the perspective of the models of democracy, radical democracy is seen as a mix of the 'best' features of the participatory and deliberative frameworks. Connected to this above all is the literature content of Charles D. Lummis (1996) and Lincoln Dahlberg (2012) on the topic of radical democracy. The anarchist scholarship is divided regarding the compatibility between anarchy/ism and democracy. The pro-democracy arguments are often reduced to viewing anarchism as radical democracy without the state in the likes of David Graeber or Wayne Price. The anti-democrats purvey democracy as another form of rule requiring abolishment (Markus Lundström, 2023; William Gillis, 2020). Inspired by the perspective of Amedeo Bertolo (1999) and Laurence Davis (2020), this article takes position that anarchism is the most radical form of democracy while anarchy goes beyond it. In outlining radical democracy's three main characteristics - (i) maintaining political power among the people, (ii) radical extension of equality and liberty, (iii) challenging oppressive power relationships - the rest of the article reviews some anarchist, anti-democratic arguments presented in the written Mutual Exchange Symposium, titled 'Anarchy & Democracy' and organised by the Centre for a Stateless Society in 2017 (republished in 2020). In doing so the article offers three main, novel, a priori arguments in favour of the pro-democracy camp on the level of theory by elaborating on the aforementioned characteristics.