What do you think?
Rate this book
The Will of the People: A Modern Myth
Democracies today are in the grip of a the myth of the will of the people. Populist movements use the idea to challenge elected representatives. Politicians, content to invoke the will of the people, fail in their duty to make responsible and accountable decisions. And public contest over political choices is stifled by fears that opposing the will of the people will be perceived as elitist.
In this book Albert Weale dissects the idea of the will of the people, showing that it relies on a mythical view of participatory democracy. As soon as a choice between more than two simple alternatives is involved, there is often no clear answer to the question of what a majority favours. Moreover, because governments have to interpret the results of referendums, the will of the people becomes a means for strengthening executive control – the exact opposite of what appealing to the people’s will seemed to imply.
Weale argues that it’s time to dispense with the myth of the will of the people. A flourishing democracy requires an open society in which choices can be challenged, parliaments strengthened and populist leaders called to account.
In this book Albert Weale dissects the idea of the will of the people, showing that it relies on a mythical view of participatory democracy. As soon as a choice between more than two simple alternatives is involved, there is often no clear answer to the question of what a majority favours. Moreover, because governments have to interpret the results of referendums, the will of the people becomes a means for strengthening executive control – the exact opposite of what appealing to the people’s will seemed to imply.
Weale argues that it’s time to dispense with the myth of the will of the people. A flourishing democracy requires an open society in which choices can be challenged, parliaments strengthened and populist leaders called to account.
120 pages, Hardcover
Published November 19, 2018
5 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Albert Weale
32 books3 followersAlbert Weale is Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy in the Department of Political Science, University College London. His research has concentrated on issues of political theory and public policy, especially environmental policy and political legitimacy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 21, 2019
Weale offers some very brief & basic common sense about democracy (there is a ‘Commonweale’ joke in here somewhere, but I am too lazy to develop it):
The main take-away is that there is no such thing as the ‘will of the people’. This is elaborated with the exlanation of the following democracy/pol-sci basics:
1 There is not a singular ‘people’
2 There is not a singular ‘majority’ that rules
3 People aren’t straightforwardly ‘sovereign’ (like an absolutist monarch would be)
- 3a People cannot ‘rule themselves’, not even through referenda
4 Being in a minority does not mean one is wrong, nor that one should shut up
&
5 Populists pretend the above aren’t true and foster the dangerous and misleading myth of the will of the people for their own political benefit.
That’s it. There isn’t much beyond the cursory* explanation of these basics. If you didn’t know these things, your civics classes have failed you miserably and you might benefit from Weale’s book.
But once he is done demolishing the myth, Weale does not offer much of an antidote, a realistic account of what democracy is or could be. That’s a pity, for dispelling a myth probably won’t be as effective**, if you don’t also provide a more comprehensive (and palatable) picture of an alternative.
Recommended for: op-ed writers, college freshmen, “well-actually” defenders of referenda, annoying people in general.
—
*The book’s directed at an extremely lay audience - any more and it would come with pictograms or emojis - it is one of that annoying breed of academic work that believes footnotes and references “scare” folks away, so it largely does away with them, offering merely a bare minimum of notes indicated only by an occasional asterisk in the text.
** A reader unused to the harsher realities of the world might even turn cynical and support the populist out of childish spite.
The main take-away is that there is no such thing as the ‘will of the people’. This is elaborated with the exlanation of the following democracy/pol-sci basics:
1 There is not a singular ‘people’
2 There is not a singular ‘majority’ that rules
3 People aren’t straightforwardly ‘sovereign’ (like an absolutist monarch would be)
- 3a People cannot ‘rule themselves’, not even through referenda
4 Being in a minority does not mean one is wrong, nor that one should shut up
&
5 Populists pretend the above aren’t true and foster the dangerous and misleading myth of the will of the people for their own political benefit.
That’s it. There isn’t much beyond the cursory* explanation of these basics. If you didn’t know these things, your civics classes have failed you miserably and you might benefit from Weale’s book.
But once he is done demolishing the myth, Weale does not offer much of an antidote, a realistic account of what democracy is or could be. That’s a pity, for dispelling a myth probably won’t be as effective**, if you don’t also provide a more comprehensive (and palatable) picture of an alternative.
Recommended for: op-ed writers, college freshmen, “well-actually” defenders of referenda, annoying people in general.
—
*The book’s directed at an extremely lay audience - any more and it would come with pictograms or emojis - it is one of that annoying breed of academic work that believes footnotes and references “scare” folks away, so it largely does away with them, offering merely a bare minimum of notes indicated only by an occasional asterisk in the text.
** A reader unused to the harsher realities of the world might even turn cynical and support the populist out of childish spite.
November 11, 2019
A very basic introduction to concepts of democracy, representation and populism. Certainly not expansive and more appropriate for someone generally interested in the topic as a member of a public than any academic or student of the subject.
October 11, 2023
The book has value since the main argument is sound and it gives some justice to various forms of democratic constitutions, but I find it a bit biased and lacking nuance. Weale illustrates lucidly how the populist idea of the singular will of the people is an illusion. That makes it a good read. Where his argumentation is less strong is what appears to be his objections to referendums. It boils down to the fact that they are based on the principle of the sovereignty of the people: Laws cannot be made with direct consensus - they demand a constitution that structures the procedures. And those constitutions can not themselves be written by the large population but has been written by a small group.
Therefore the literal idea of people sovereignty is a myth.
This makes sense. This fact doesn't mean it is impossible or pointless to shift the wheels of power into the hands of the people, by making it constitutionally possible for referendums to be bottom-up and binding. The fact that they can't be more binding than the legislation of parliament doesn't diminish their value in checking parlimentary systems, where coalition agreements can move away from majority approval.
Weale brings up a number of practical problems with referendums, so the book delivers the political statement of it's title well. There are a few statements that are less obvious:
"the basic case for holding a referendum is that there are some issues that arise on the political agenda of societies that cannot realistically be handled through the normal processes of contest among political parties."
The sovereignty of the people literally interpreted may be a myth, but so may the idea of representation. Can we really trust our politicans to fairly represent their electors, especially given the vast array of issues on the contemporary aganda that are to be prioritized? The same might be said about the idea of equilibrated balance of power. At the end of the day courts, banks and governments are not transparent to and checked by civil society.
And even if referendums have unintended consequences, this does not make them any different from party politics. It's not like a deliberative process is lacking if say 50 000 + people has petitioned for a referendum, quite the contrary. The list of pros and cons goes on, but it is not a given that representative democracy is more effective and desirable than a more direct type. And while one does not wish to put a spin on his words, judging by the statement quoted above - one might wonder if Weale has any confidence in the ability of people to make informed resolutions. A friendly interpretation would be that he presumes referendums to be ineffective.
Therefore the literal idea of people sovereignty is a myth.
This makes sense. This fact doesn't mean it is impossible or pointless to shift the wheels of power into the hands of the people, by making it constitutionally possible for referendums to be bottom-up and binding. The fact that they can't be more binding than the legislation of parliament doesn't diminish their value in checking parlimentary systems, where coalition agreements can move away from majority approval.
Weale brings up a number of practical problems with referendums, so the book delivers the political statement of it's title well. There are a few statements that are less obvious:
"the basic case for holding a referendum is that there are some issues that arise on the political agenda of societies that cannot realistically be handled through the normal processes of contest among political parties."
The sovereignty of the people literally interpreted may be a myth, but so may the idea of representation. Can we really trust our politicans to fairly represent their electors, especially given the vast array of issues on the contemporary aganda that are to be prioritized? The same might be said about the idea of equilibrated balance of power. At the end of the day courts, banks and governments are not transparent to and checked by civil society.
And even if referendums have unintended consequences, this does not make them any different from party politics. It's not like a deliberative process is lacking if say 50 000 + people has petitioned for a referendum, quite the contrary. The list of pros and cons goes on, but it is not a given that representative democracy is more effective and desirable than a more direct type. And while one does not wish to put a spin on his words, judging by the statement quoted above - one might wonder if Weale has any confidence in the ability of people to make informed resolutions. A friendly interpretation would be that he presumes referendums to be ineffective.
December 1, 2019
A must must read...
“As a citizen of a democratic country, you know you are in trouble when a political party–any political party–claims to embody the will of the people. One people; one will; one-party state.”
“The will of the people is a myth not because the general run of people in a democracy are ignorant and short-sighted, but because people are diverse and there are different and often incompatible ways of combining their opinions.”
“Populism is the sigh of the oppressed creature. Any democratic system worthy of the name will respond to that sigh. But it should respond not on the basis of myth, but on the basis of a realistic assessment of alternatives. Realism is not the same as resignation. Things as they are is not the same as things as they might be. Realism does not mean giving up on serious social and economic reform. It does mean recognizing that responsible politics is about deciding on the basis of the wills of different people, not the mythical ghost that supposedly animates the body of a singular people”
“As a citizen of a democratic country, you know you are in trouble when a political party–any political party–claims to embody the will of the people. One people; one will; one-party state.”
“The will of the people is a myth not because the general run of people in a democracy are ignorant and short-sighted, but because people are diverse and there are different and often incompatible ways of combining their opinions.”
“Populism is the sigh of the oppressed creature. Any democratic system worthy of the name will respond to that sigh. But it should respond not on the basis of myth, but on the basis of a realistic assessment of alternatives. Realism is not the same as resignation. Things as they are is not the same as things as they might be. Realism does not mean giving up on serious social and economic reform. It does mean recognizing that responsible politics is about deciding on the basis of the wills of different people, not the mythical ghost that supposedly animates the body of a singular people”
September 15, 2020
Aardige introductie in de spanning tussen democratie en de pretentie van politici/populisten die namens ‘het volk’ menen te spreken. Prima om snel te lezen. Niet diepgaand over het concept van ‘soevereiniteit’.
October 6, 2022
A bit boring and basic.
September 18, 2023
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews