Karl Reimund Popper is a philosopher who marked the 20th century with his thorough work and uncorrupted battle against wrong beliefs in science, society and politics. Not only that he marked the century, but lived its bigger part as well. Born in imperial Vienna, at the turn of centuries, in respected and educated family, Popper got to know as still a child the absurdity of militant nationalism that resulted in the First World War. Very soon afterwards, he got to know equal absurdity of militant communist movement: as very young he found himself on the front and then became an active sympathizer of the Austrian communists. It turned out that the personal experience was far more precious than all sweet talk of nationalist and communist tracts that searched the souls of young people in that time. And for that matter, Popper’s experience was negative. Not only that it disproved the promises of these two grandiose projects but also permanently stacked him to the ideals of an active liberalism familiar with moderate reforms.
Opium for the Masses: At the other hand, it was nationalism and communism in their different variants that were dominant political projects in the 20th century. Popper was the intellectual who with rare persistence and willingness was trying to take off the masks from these ideologies and their philosophical sources. The fact that these two flattering social utopias with the enormous strength were succeeding to unite the hopes of the intellectuals for the new beginning of the social life, the ambitions of political leaders in their epochal mission and the needs of the masses to look for the escape by expressing their revolt – only could have shown how it was difficult to come to the rational political power and to what extent people are by their nature inclined to misleading conclusions, accepting prejudices and false authorities. While the National Socialism collapsed with the defeat of Germany, Popper had to wait several decades for the intellectual circles to realize the validity of his critique of another enemy to the open society – real socialism.
However, Popper is still up to date concerning political philosophy, especially in the former communist societies. The reason is in the fact that most of them, completely degenerated through totalitarian system lasting for the half of the century, do not succeed to find their way towards democratic political and economic institutions. This is a good occasion to get reminded on the Popper’s understanding of complex problems concerning democratic power and the argumentation why is it superior to the other forms of the government.
Normative Model: Karl Popper gained his philosophical reputation as a philosopher of science or, more precisely, as one of the most original methodologists of scientific research. As a student he was fascinated by the exactness and the strength of vision in physics, unlike undefined terms characteristic of the majority of social sciences. The linguistic precizeness, the possibility of checking, inventiveness, the concurrence of ideas, successfulness and the practical implementation of scientific results – all these are qualities that Popper will try to inbuild in his own philosophy, both in the theory of knowledge and political philosophy. That is why it is not awkward at all that his social theory is built on the postulates of natural sciences’ procedures and investigations. In other words, what is rational in science should by some analogy be rational in the organization of a society as well. Successful society in many spheres applies the same type of rational behaviour, what Popper convincingly demonstrates.
For Popper it is scientific community, where different suggestions and solutions are presented for the test of public approval, which serves as the normative model of democratic society. The rational type of policy is the one where exists the possibility of free discussion, where everyone can suggest alternatives and proposals. That is how an enormous quantity of knowledge is acquired which can be used for solving the problems society faces. In the way that scientific results are arrived at through the simultaneous cooperation and the concurrence of different theories, thus democratic fremwork offers free space for the flow of ideas. It is institutionalized through the existence of the parliament, parties, public opinion, electoral procedures. These complex instruments of a state and the rules implemented in fact only make possible the functioning of knowledge process.
Why is it important? First of all because society as such is always faced with the need to solve the most diverse problems of importance for its survival. At the other hand, individuals usually know little and easily make mistakes. In order to solve problems, it is necessary to implement as many different ideas and knowledge. Noone has universal knowledge and noone has the monopoly on truth. That is why it is unavoidable for a society as an organism to use the only one method at disposal for the solving of problems – learning through trials and mistakes. Well developed parliamentarian democratic framework enables that.
Scientific Liberalism: Since neither individuals nor institutions are immune to holding false judgements and conclusions, the rigorous selection of ideas is necessary. In the field of economy, market competition provides mechanisms that differ successful from unsuccessful enerprising. In the sphere of of politics, selection is much more difficult and indirect: liberal-democratic political framework makes possible the competition of ideas through the parliamentary mechanisms, public and electoral procedures. For that reason, he defines liberal democracy as governing through discussion. As a discussion, new ideas are always the product of an individual, and not collective. This, however, does not mean that politics should exclusively be the right of an elite. For, as Periclo used to say, though individuals are those who promote new ideas and make them feasible, the majority of people is able to discuss them in a sober way.
Thus democracy means two mutually connected processes. The first consists of the selection of those to whom the power is given in order to try to realize their global proposals and concepts. By the will of majority, they hold the power. The second process consists of the evaluation of what have been done. For, after a while, the majority of people in a society, since affected by decisions and the policy of the government, can judge whether these ideas and their implementations were successful. Democratic framwork enables that government, if failed to fulfill the expectations of voters, is replaced in a peacful manner and at the head of the state are placed alternative political forces.
The Prevention of Abuses: The possibility for the peaceful change of government is at the same time the key feature of democracy, unlike dictatorship where the government can be replaced only by the use of force. That is why Popper assumes that the main characteristic of democracy is not that majority decides who will rule, but the existence of such institutions that enable unproper and uncompetent government to be replaced in a peaceful manner. The prevention of rulling elite’s malpractices in liberal democracies is realized through traditions and institutions such as: the control of electoral procedures, independent courts, neutral legislation, balance between political forces, involvement of public opinion, free media…
At the other hand, when absolute power exists – there is no political rationality. Decisions made solely by the dictator do not fall under the above mentioned democratic mechanisms of control and there is no fear of loosing the power. This practically means that there is no possibility for the prompt correction of wrong political deeds. As a result, we know that from the personal experience, catastrophes usually occur.
