How Free Societies Fall for Totalitarian Temptations: Ryszard Legutko

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Ryszard Legutko fought for freedom in Poland as an underground editor in the anti-communist Solidarity movement. But after democracy was restored in Poland, he began seeing trends he didn’t expect in not just Poland, but many other liberal democracies as well.

A professor, philosopher, and most recently a politician, Ryszard Legutko explains his findings in his book “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.”

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

*Big thanks to our sponsor for this episode Patriot Gold Group. Check them out here: https://ept.ms/3sr5LhH

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Ryszard Legutko, such pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Ryszard Legutko:
Thank you for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:
In your book, “The Demon in Democracy,” you make some startling observations. You are challenging liberal democracy, which is quite shocking. Isn’t it the best system we have?

Mr. Legutko:
Not necessarily. The book has several layers, but my main point is that the political system known as liberal democracy, found here in the United States, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, shares some despotic tendencies with communist regimes. We shouldn’t be deceived by terminology. Just because something is called democratic doesn’t mean it truly represents rule by the people. We live in a time where the manipulation of language is widespread. Let’s focus on the reality behind the words.

Mr. Jekielek:
You were the editor of a prominent underground magazine called Arca, and witnessed the transition from the communist system in 1989. You mentioned that you wouldn’t have been able to write your book under communism. It seems that you appreciate liberal democracy in some ways.

Mr. Legutko:
I’m not saying that these two systems are identical. That would be preposterous. But there are tendencies in liberal democracy that remind me of what happened under the communist regime, and that troubles me. It’s astonishing, and we need to realize these tendencies exist sooner, rather than later. If we continue to believe that liberal democracy is the best possible world and ignore the realities, it may be too late to change things.

Mr. Jekielek:
Another observation you made is that after 1989, we had the round table negotiations and then democracy emerged. Some people who were explicitly anti-communist, such as those from Solidarność Walcząca or similar groups, had trouble adapting to the system, while former communists seamlessly transitioned into the social democrats and found success within the system. This was unexpected for you. Please elaborate on this.

Mr. Legutko:
That struck me when I became a member of the European Parliament in 2009. I witnessed former communists and apparatchiks adapting to the system and being accepted as exemplary liberal democrats. It was quite a contrast to the difficulties faced by those who were explicitly anti-communist. Whereas, people like myself were considered troublemakers. We were people who shouldn’t be there in the first place, because of our unconventional ideas about family, tradition, and European political ideology.
The European Union has been under the control of the liberal Left from the start. This one-party rule has created a situation where individuals like me who hold different beliefs are viewed as dangerous and are then isolated from the system. Although we are not imprisoned or arrested, this exclusion contradicts the principles of a modern democratic state, where everyone’s voice should be heard.

Over the past few decades, European politics has witnessed the disappearance of the traditional Left and Right. There used to be a competition between these two political orientations, but now the political landscape has shifted radically to the Left. The Right is no longer seen as a legitimate part of political life, and the differences between today’s Right and Left are negligible.
For example, the Tories and Labour in Britain, are they really any different? The Tories today are really a Leftist party, at least its leaders are. The Christian Democrats in Germany are Christian democrats in name only. This mainstream center, which actually represents the Leftist agenda, is considered the only legitimate and acceptable one. Those who do not conform are isolated.

Mr. Jekielek:
In your discussion about democracy, you draw a similarity to communism, where the ultimate goal of that ideology is a perfect communism which you can’t challenge. Liberal democracy has a very similar situation of being a totalizing system. But I don’t feel like I can challenge liberal democracy, because I believe that it is good. It becomes a blind spot because language can be changed and it affects us all.

Mr. Legutko:
Yes, we are too attached to words. We react to words and certain slogans, but do not see the reality behind those words.

Mr. Jekielek:
Communism politicizes everything. In liberal democracy we are voting for everything, but we are politicizing everything too.

Mr. Legutko:
Yes. That is one of the points I make. We are politicizing everything. Initially, this system should have retained and preserved many non-political areas. Just let people do what they want. There are certain areas of life that should be protected against political interference. But that’s not the case, for reasons which I will not go into.
Under the Communists, everything had to be Communist. It was not just the family, it was Communist family. It was not morality, but Communist morality. It was not just art, but Communist art. Now, everything has to be liberal or democratic or liberal democratic. Whereas, there are many institutions, communities, or human activities that cannot be either liberal or democratic.
Family is not a democratic institution. Calling it that is a step towards the destruction of the family. Schools and universities are inherently hierarchical or, in the original etymological sense, aristocratic, which means “the best” in Greek. Of course, it’s not about hereditary aristocracy. These are aristocratic institutions where there are teachers and pupils that try to follow and learn. All these things are necessary for the proper functioning of society.
Really, we live in a society that is increasingly politicized and ideologized. You can see political ideology everywhere. Even going to the theater nowadays exposes you to woke ideology and critical race theory. Going to a university exposes you to the same political ideology in literature. Everything is becoming more and more influenced by ideology. It is extremely dangerous to be constantly fed the same ideas, because it limits your ability to think critically.
The consequence of this is that if you disagree with what is deemed acceptable or deviate from the ideological directives, you face trouble. You may lose your job or be reprimanded. In some countries, dissent can lead to arrest or at least being viewed with suspicion, instead of being seen as a normal member of society. If someone had told me 10 or 15 years ago that it would be possible to have a liberal democratic system where using the wrong personal pronoun could land you in jail, I would have thought they were insane. It seemed impossible.
But what was once impossible has now become reality. You can be jailed for what is called misgendering, which is simply outrageous. Our freedom is becoming increasingly restricted, and the legal system is growing more repressive. These restrictions eventually find their way into laws. You not only face social ostracism and losing friends, but you also face repression. It is truly shocking.

Mr. Jekielek:
You use the term “coercion to freedom.” Please explain what you mean by that.

Mr. Legutko:
This concept dates back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that society should be united with a common will and shared goals. But there will always be people who are dissenters, rebels, or troublemakers, wanting things their own way. In such cases, coercion can be used to bring them back in line, but it is considered a good kind of coercion because it helps them find the true path to freedom.
That may sound awful to us now, given our experience, but Rousseau lived in the mid-18th century and had not witnessed its application. This kind of coercion was similar to what took place in the Soviet Union and in other communist regimes. If you were someone who challenged or did not conform to the system, you were not only viewed as dangerous, but you were also sent to a hospital for medication therapy. Sadly, we still see this happening today.

Mr. Jekielek:
Isn’t that where the term re-education comes from?

Mr. Legutko:
Yes, re-education. Today, if you are considered to be someone who has wrong or unruly ideas, even the management of your company can order you to undergo therapy. The ideas you express are not just seen as wrong or controversial; there is something assumed to be inherently wrong with you. Thus, you are in need of therapy in order to become a different person. In the Soviet Union, they sent people like us to psychiatric hospitals for treatment. You were sick and needed to see a psychiatrist in order to become a normal person and conform. Today, this is considered normal.

Another example is raising consciousness, a phrase that originated from communist times. During that time, you were unaware of the blessings and goodness of communism. To be educated, you had to take various courses or lessons. The teachers would try to open your eyes and show you how fortunate you were to live under communism and the valuable message that was conveyed by communist ideology.

Mr. Jekielek:
Herbert Marcuse developed the concept of repressive tolerance, which suggested that certain individuals or ideas should not be tolerated and that we should fight against them. Some believe that this Marxist concept influenced our system and changed the way our politics work. You are saying that this type of thinking, which you compare to the Soviet Union, actually stems from liberal democracy. This is a completely different perspective. You argue that those who truly believe in liberal democracy may succumb to this autocratic thinking and implement coercive policies.

Mr. Legutko:
Both statements are true. Marxism or neo-Marxism has infiltrated and become part of today’s culture in liberal democratic societies. However, my argument is slightly different. Let’s examine liberalism and democracy. Why can liberalism result in a despotic system? I don’t believe that liberalism is about liberty, and here I am talking about the liberal tradition of John Locke and John Stuart Mills. I am not talking about today’s liberalism.

Liberals would argue, “We defend freedom, and freedom means the absence of coercion.” They view freedom as having a space wherein you can do as you please. For example, you can either choose to smoke a cigarette, or refuse to do so. They say, “We want to feel safe in our homes and private lives. Wherever we go, we want this free space to do what we like.”
Now, in order to establish a liberal order, you must distribute these rights of freedom, so that everyone is content with the freedom they possess. But who is responsible for this distribution of freedom and the creation of free space? I would ask, “Why you? Why do you put yourselves above everyone else? By distributing freedom, you are claiming significant power.”

What criteria do we use for distributing freedom? The usual answer is equality. This means that everyone should have more or less the same amount of freedom. However, this notion is also controversial. You could have a historically structured society, such as a Christian society that developed within the Christian tradition. This includes powerful Christian communities and institutions. If a liberal were to be in control of this society, they could argue that Christians have too much freedom while Buddhists have too little. This type of liberalism can be seen as a form of social engineering. However, this approach can be brutal as it involves restructuring society. Liberalism is not simply about live and let live but involves constant restructuring in the name of freedom.

Mr. Jekielek:
It seems like you are now defining “coercion to freedom.”

Mr. Legutko:
Yes, as well as redefining democracy. Democracy is a complex notion. I would recommend reading “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat who visited the United States in the early 1830s.

Mr. Jekielek:
America was considered the first modern democracy.

Mr. Legutko:
That’s correct. Tocqueville was very much in favor of what he observed in America, how they built themselves up and organized themselves in a democratic society with great energy. But his book ends with a disconcerting prediction—this system could evolve into a new form of despotism, which he couldn’t name at the time. He referred to it as a benevolent and mild despotism where people lose their will and become satisfied with pleasures and entertainment, controlled by the bureaucratic state or corporations. This is something that democracy can generate. It can become a mass society where people become indistinguishable from each other, both in appearance and language, due to having the same influences.

We cannot be content with the belief that liberal democracy is the best political system. In fact, it is not the best. When Tocqueville’s book was published, one question was, “If you’re dissatisfied with liberal democracy, what alternative do you propose? What do you want?” Personally, I’m not very original. I support something that the ancient Greeks, specifically Plato and Aristotle, referred to as the mixed regime.

The mixed regime is a system that is essentially pluralistic in structure. In fact, the United States was constructed as a mixed regime by the framers of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, particularly the writings of Madison, you can see that these well-educated individuals were heavily influenced by classical political thought. Their goal was not to establish a democracy in America, but rather a republic.

The term republic represented a type of mixed regime. In this system, the American president held significant power, similar to that of a king. The Senate, on the other hand, was akin to the council of elders in ancient systems. Additionally, the House of Representatives served as the representatives of the people. These ideas were influential to the framers of the American system and similar concepts were present in many European countries.
For example, Britain, which had a monarchy, could be considered a republic in the sense of a mixed regime. The Greek term “politeia” was translated to Latin as “republica”, or republic. Therefore, the concept of a mixed regime was deeply ingrained in political thought.

However, at some point, we became infatuated with the idea of liberal democracy. This caused us to become very dogmatic in our thinking, making it difficult to openly discuss alternative systems. If you express any views that deviate from liberal democracy, you risk being labeled as illiberal, anti-democratic, or even as extreme as a Nazi or fascist. Consequently, many people opt to stay silent in order to avoid trouble.

Mr. Jekielek:
I noticed that the most popular texts being read in America include “Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”, alongside the Bible. Surprisingly, “Democracy in America” isn’t as popular.

Mr. Legutko:
That’s unfortunate, because “Democracy in America” is a fantastic book.

Mr. Jekielek:
Indeed, it provides a valuable perspective on the wonder and beauty of American democracy, as well as the potential pitfalls that were already emerging. In your book, you suggest that the concept of inalienable rights, which is a crucial component of the American creed, is counterintuitive and challenging to justify. Some may view your perspective as illiberal.

Mr. Legutko:
Yes, it may even sound blasphemous or sacrilegious. However, I find it peculiar that American believe, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Why are these truths considered self-evident? Self-evident to whom? You do not find these truths anywhere else. It’s not one of those tautologies, like two plus two equals four. It’s not a Christian notion. It’s not in the Bible, in theological tradition, or in classical philosophy. It’s not self-evident at all.

Why should we have inalienable rights? You may argue that for human development and life, you have to have some liberty and freedom, as it is essential for a decent human being. However, there are other things that are also essential for development. The ancient sages talked about virtue, courage, wisdom, and spiritual sensitivity. All these things are important.

If you define a human being by the concept of rights, it means that by the mere fact of your birth, you can make certain claims. But I don’t see why that is true. It’s like hereditary aristocracy, where certain privileges were based on birthright. You could have slaves or enjoy riches simply because you were born into a particular family.
However, true aristocracy was different; it was defined by duties and obligations, rather than rights. A nobleman’s obligations included defending freedom, which encompassed all virtues, as well as duty to your loved ones, family, country, community, truth, and beauty. This is how a human being should be defined, not solely by rights. Freedom of speech, which was once considered an essential right, is now diminishing.

Mr. Jekielek:
But now it’s argued that freedom of speech infringes on other rights.

Mr. Legutko:
It can infringe on the power of one group. If people initially hoped that the declaration of human rights would make us safer and guarantee our freedoms, it didn’t work. We now have less and less freedom. Look at the right-to-life movement; abortions are now prevalent everywhere. Right-to-life does not exist in most countries. This approach did not function well, because the notion itself is misconceived and not defensible. It makes the wrong assumptions about human beings. We are more than just entities with rights.

Mr. Jekielek:
Your book, “The Demon in Democracy,” is an incredible contribution. Everyone would agree that our democratic system is not functioning well at the moment. You provide some very insightful understanding of what went wrong, and I encourage our viewers to read your book. Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Mr. Legutko:
One way to start change is through politics because politics is now everywhere. Politics is about finding balance and equilibrium. We need to restore this balance and have a political party that represents continuity. It’s important to have a viable alternative to just one dominant mainstream. Labeling anyone who falls outside of this mainstream as a Nazi, a fool, or insane is unfair and unproductive.

Having a balance is essential for democratic politics to work effectively. We should have the freedom to choose whether we want to pursue more radical changes, or just maintain continuity and make necessary adjustments. This is a natural part of the political process.
However, if power is only concentrated in the hands of extreme radicals who continue to experiment recklessly with human nature, we risk sliding down a dangerous path. The system will become more despotic with time, and it’s essential to prevent this from happening. Therefore, we need a range of choices, equilibrium, and a political and ideological balance. This is what constitutes a healthy political structure. Without it, the system will deteriorate, and we will face significant challenges.

Mr. Jekielek:
Professor Richard Legutko, it’s a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Legutko:
Thank you. It was my pleasure.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.