How Democracies Can Survive in a Multi-Truth World

We live in a world of fake news and alternative facts. Agreeing on what is real and what is not, what is true and what is false, seems to have become more difficult than ever. Many see the foundations of democracy at risk if we cannot agree on the basics. The recent U.S. election is a good example: what if a large number of people believe that the election results were made up? Maybe not surprisingly, the new U.S. President Biden made the “fight for truth” a central point in his inauguration speech last week:

“We face an attack on our democracy, and on truth […] There is truth and there are lies. […] Each of us has a duty and a responsibility […] to defend the truth and defeat the lies.”

But is this a realistic goal in today’s world? Can we reach consensus on a single truth? Or do we need to prepare democracy for a new reality – a reality of multiple, co-existing truths? And if so, how?

Many scholars, like philosopher Paul Valadier, argue that democracy “needs truth, or at least the attempt to find the truth”. This is because we as citizens can only trust a government if we don’t suspect it to lie about fundamental issues such as the state of the economy, threats to people’s financial security or dangers to people’s lives – like the current pandemic. Historian Sophia Rosenfeld further argues that, when people lose trust in political leaders, or the experts that advise them, this can give rise to populists who claim to serve the people’s “real” interests. When this happens, a concern for objective truth is replaced entirely by appeals to emotion and personal beliefs, which, according to political scientist John Keane, may be the real danger of a “post-truth world”. 

But does that mean that we are moving away from a time when democracy was anchored in truth? Perhaps truth-seeking has never been at the core of democratic systems. In fact, some argue that politicians lie all the time – no matter which political party they belong to. Trump’s own record of allegedly more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency is just an extreme case. In his latest book “A Mafia Democracy” former New York mobster Michael Franzese argues that opportunistic lying and truth-bending have always been integral to democracies like the U.S. But if democracies are not based on truth, what are they based on? Historian Yuval Harari argues that the regulating power of political systems does not come from truth-seeking but from “shared fictions”. One example is the notion that “all men are created equal”, as it is stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Of course, in reality people differ quite a lot in many ways. But only if people believe in unifying ideas like equal opportunity they will obey the same laws and be willing to be governed by the same leaders, according to Harari.

In other words, it comes down to how able and willing people are to reach consensus about the reality they live in and want to live in. But this seems increasingly difficult in today’s world. Whereas in ancient Greece the Agora provided a central public space for debate and consensus-building, today’s conversations are increasingly dominated by social media bubbles. The documentary The Social Dilemma convincingly argues that it is in the business interest of social media platforms to keep their users engaged. One effective way to do this is to feed them with information that matches their personal interests and confirms their views. A multi-truth society has emerged that is based not on the exchange of viewpoints but on the co-existence of multiple, incompatible belief systems. This is how I can explain why, even among my own academic Facebook friends, all of whom are trained in separating fact from fiction, some still believe that the Coronavirus is a hoax and Biden stole the election.   

So how can we imagine a functioning democracy under these conditions? Recent events in the U.S. provide a glimpse into what might be needed for democracies to work in a multi-truth world.

Needs before Truths. President Biden seems to understand that a deeper consensus is required about what most people are actually concerned about rather than what they believe in. In his inauguration speech he said: “Look, I understand that many of my fellow Americans view the future with fear […]. I understand they worry about their jobs. […] like my dad, they lay in bed at night staring at the ceiling thinking: 'Can I keep my healthcare? Can I pay my mortgage?' […]. I promise you, I get it.” Even with the rise of what Norris and Inglehart call post-materialist values such as gender identity and sustainability, there are immediate material needs that keep us grounded and that are not debatable. No matter whether you believe that the earth is flat or round you still need to pay your bills. Recognizing those fundamental needs will be key for democracies to sustain in a multi-truth world.

Effective Deliberation. Only a few weeks ago former U.S. President Trump still claimed that he won the 2020 presidential election “in a landslide”. And many still believe him, even though the official election results and recounts show the opposite. One major reason why Trump’s “alternative facts” don’t matter in the end is effective deliberation. Not only did all U.S. states certify their votes, but none of the 62 lawsuits Trump’s team filed succeeded. Legal institutions deliberate, if necessary, whether there is sufficient evidence for whatever “truth” is being presented. Importantly, the law does not care to find the most “objective” truth, but the most “serviceable”. Evidence or counter-evidence needs to be “good enough” to come to a decision, to get things done. Deliberation does not impose a “single truth” either. Even after all lawsuits failed, many still believed that the election was “stolen”. But that is ok. Everybody is entitled to their own truth. The key is that deliberation allowed the democratic process to continue – from election to inauguration – no matter what different people believed.

Guardians of Democracy. Another reason why the U.S. seems to have passed the stress test of Trump’s “alternative facts” is that a critical number of representatives of the political system value the stability of democracy as much as their own ideology. They serve as Guardians of Democracy. This includes former Vice President Mike Pence, who agreed to let new Vice President Kamala Harris escort him down the steps of the Capitol to usher him back to civilian life after the inauguration – an important representation of the peaceful transfer of power. Such Guardians can be politicians, lawyers, judges, ministers, political advisors and staff members who, in moments of crisis, serve larger ideals and display what former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger called, in his own comment on recent events, a “public servant’s heart”.

Whether democracies will survive in their current form amidst the cacophony of worldviews and theories of truth is maybe an open question. But recent events have shown that democracy is built on principles and institutions that are less fragile than the truths we seek in our social media bubbles.

* Picture: Joe Biden sworn in as 46th President of the United States, Reuters, from: https://www.voanews.com/usa/dc-diplomatic-corps-among-few-invited-witness-biden-inauguration