The Open Society and its Enemies

I have been contemplating, of late, about a book published in 1945 by Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, and its relevance for us today.

Popper wrote the book when much of the world was still at war and he himself was in political exile in New Zealand (after having fled the the annexation of Austria by the German Reich). The book was a persuasive, practical and powerful defence of an open, liberal, and democratic order and was received as such by his contemporaries although not without criticism. It was prescient, as it was cautionary, over the seductive appeal of closed, ’tribal’ and collectivist political narratives which placed the state above (and even subsumed) the individual - all the more so as WWII was in its final stages and the Cold-war loomed. (As it happens, the book was not published in Russia until 1992).

The challenge, as Popper saw it, was not to solve that classic philosophical problem of ‘who should rule’ but rather a very reductive one - how do we guard against tyranny? how do we stop bad rulers from doing too much harm?

Today - as we witness political upheavals at home (in the UK) and abroad as populist, authoritarian and parochial narratives are disturbingly adopted by left and right alike to the detriment of individual human rights, and as social, cultural, and economic cleavages become more entrenched - the book (regrettably in many ways) impresses upon us again. Popper’s principal arguments are hugely relevant.

His first argument is against historical determinism i.e. the idea that, like scientific laws, there are laws of history which we can discern to predict our future. On that view, history somehow magically progresses and is always bound to progress to some end. We have all heard many manifestations of this in our politics and academia of late: ‘it’s the ebb and flow of history’ [Syria, Turkey, Iraq …]; ‘the dawn of a new age’ [Russia, China …]; ‘back to the state of our forefathers’ [Hungary, Poland, Netherlands ...], ‘make a great return to the great past’ [US, UK …] and so forth.

His second, related argument, is that neither the open nor closed society has any inevitability - those who advocate arresting political change or democratic development must be guarded against. Whilst democracy is no easy task and totalitarianism may often be lurking (rather than knocking at its proverbial walls) it can triumph. But it cannot triumph without active, rational, and critical individual engagement - people who are aware and guard against threats.

Why are then new social or political movements supporting the ‘closed’ society, and revolting against democratic order, so popular?

In respect of those who who wish to arrest democratic development to usher in a return to closed society (characterised by tribalism, autarky, anti-humanitarianism, anti-universalism, domination, and small isolated states), Popper acknowledges they could be grounded in “the strain, the unhappiness, under which the people were labouring…” The underlying problems can, of course, be real and authentic. Popper also noted that ‘historicist’ ideas gain traction during a time of great social change:

“I am inclined to think that the reason is that they give expression to a deep felt dissatisfaction with a world which does not, and cannot, live up to our moral ideals and to our dreams of perfection. The tendency of historicism (and of related views) to support the revolt against civilization may be due to the fact that historicism itself is, largely, a reaction against the strain of our civilization and its demand for personal responsibility.”

What is the ‘open’ society and why should we to aspire to it?

The open society is one that “sets free the critical powers of man“ and women [I must add] "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions.” It is not a grand system of philosophy, or some utopian state, or prophecy - its focus is on pragmatic, personal, decision making. Great men, and principally ‘men’ as history will have it, and their thoughts deserve no automatic deference whatsoever. (Popper heavily criticises Plato, Hegel, Heraclitus and Marxist ideologies). Arresting democratic development or accepting historical prophecy whether it promises the ushering in of a new great age, or great saviours, or the promise even of an inevitable lapse into totalitarianism all, often, have one feature in common; they disempower, discourage and dissuade individual action - if not at first then certainly when they get subsumed in the grand populist, state narrative. Passivity is often the result.

What can we do?

The simple but incontestable answer from Popper, albeit he believes only for us still living in functioning democratic orders, is that:

“Democracy (...) provides the institutional framework for the reform of political institutions. It makes possible the reform of institutions without using violence, and thereby the use of reason in the designing of new institutions and the adjusting of old ones. [...] It is quite wrong to blame democracy for the political shortcomings of a democratic state. We should rather blame ourselves, that is to say the citizens of the democratic state. In a nondemocratic state, the only way to achieve reasonable reforms is by the violent overthrow of the government, and the introduction of a democratic framework.”

And with that there is a call for how to ‘progress’ in our challenging times:

“'History' cannot do that [progress]; only we, the human individuals, can do it; we can do it by defending and strengthening those democratic institutions upon which freedom, and with it progress, depends. And we shall do it much better as we become more fully aware of the fact that progress rests with us, with our watchfulness, with our efforts, with the clarity of our conception of our ends, and with the realism of their choice. Instead of posing as prophets we must become the makers of our fate. We must learn to do things as well as we can, and to look out for our mistakes. And when we have dropped the idea that the history of power will be our judge, when we have given up worrying whether or not history will justify us, then one day perhaps we may succeed in getting power under control. In this way we may even justify history, in our turn. It badly needs a justification.”

I hope reviving some of the Popper’s thoughts might be a basis for some optimistic, empowering and (even) activist resolutions for the year that remains - doing as Popper instructs, as well as we can and looking out for our mistakes, we might even make friends out of our enemies.

This is the second of ten very short takes on books that helped shape the forthcoming: ‘A Constitution of the People’.

Sources: The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper. Further suggestions for readings: Pericles’ Funeral Oration from 431 BC - still a passionate, persuasive and unapologetic defence of the liberal democratic order; and Rebecca Solnit’s Hope in the Dark (look out for a blog post on this one!) Note: A version of this piece was written by the author in 2016.