REVIEW PAPER
TECHNOCRATIC TOTALITARIANISM AS A RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY
More details
Hide details
1
ISS, Akademia Sztuki Wojennej, Polska
2
Ł-ORGMASZ, Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz, Polska
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article
Submission date: 2023-10-04
Final revision date: 2023-10-18
Acceptance date: 2023-10-18
Publication date: 2023-10-18
SBN 2023;30(4): 25-40
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The article addresses the context of the transition and evolution of post-industrial societies, in which technocracy is emerging as an alternative to traditional democracy, better able to cope with the challenges of the present day. The purpose of this article is to explore how the level of meta-analysis contributes to assessing the effectiveness of technocracy compared to democracy by analyzing the nature of the crisis of democracy, the relationship between democracy and technocracy, the advantages of technocracy over democracy, the changes required by technocracy, and the impact of technocracy on the quality of social life and political power. The research problem, therefore, is to evaluate the effectiveness of democracy versus technocracy as a political system. This study conducts a holistic and comparative analysis of technocracy, democracy and their interrelationship in the context of contemporary political systems. Technocracy, based on the optimisation of processes and data, offers long-term strategies and instant responses to social and economic change. Despite this, critics point to its lack of moral and ideological underpinnings, leading to risks such as bureaucratisation and specialisation, limiting pluralism and individual freedom. An analysis of technocracy in the context of Neil Postman's concept shows the potential risk of losing social values, authority and individual freedom due to bureaucratisation. Technocracy, as a cult of science and technology, deifies science and reifies religion, leading to totalitarianism and dehumanisation, transforming individuals into means of production and consumption. This study emphasises that technocracy is not clearly positive or negative, but a complex phenomenon. On the one hand, it can bring efficiency and social development and, on the other, lead to a loss of fundamental values and freedom. The analysis of this issue takes into account different perspectives and contexts, allowing for a fuller understanding of its implications for contemporary societies. The study presented here is an in-depth analysis of technocracy, revealing its advantages, disadvantages and the risks it poses to society. It offers a comprehensive perspective on technocracy and its relationship with democracy, shedding light on the controversial debate on the future of governance in the post-industrial era.
REFERENCES (47)
1.
Achen, C., Bartels, L., 2017. Democracy for Realists, Princeton.
2.
Aminm, S., 2007. The Liberal Virus, Warsaw.
3.
Barber, B.R., 2005. Fear’s Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy in an Age of Interdependence, Warsaw.
4.
Bellone, C., 2018. The ‘Governance’ for Smart City Strategies and Territorial Planning, in: Intelligent Computing & Optimization, Springer.
5.
Cohen, D., 2011. La prospérité du vice, Katowice.
6.
Fukuyama, F., 2019. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, Warsaw.
7.
Fundamenty dobrego społeczeństwa. Wartości, 1992. Ed. M. Bogunia-Borowska, Kraków 2015. Gadamer H.G., The European Legacy, Warsaw.
8.
Giddens, A., 2009. Living in a Post-Traditional Society, [in:] U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization, Warsaw.
9.
Goody, J., 2010. Capitalism and Modernity, Warsaw.
10.
Grygieńć, J., 2017. Demokracja na rozdrożu. Deliberacja czy partycypacja polityczna?, Kraków.
11.
Hołówka, J., 2006. Fałszywa demokracja, Przegląd Filozoficzny, 4.
12.
Horkheimer, M., 2007. Critique of Instrumental Reason, Warsaw.
13.
Husson, M., 2011. Capitalisme sans anesthésie, Warsaw.
14.
Ihglehart, R., Norris P., 2003. The True Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Policy.
15.
Inglehart, R., 2000. Globalization and postmodern values, The Washington Quarterly, Winter.
16.
Inglehart, R., 2000. Globalization and postmodern values, The Washington Quarterly.
17.
Inglehart, R., 2003. Culture and Democracy, [in:] Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human, Progress, ed. L. Harrisona, S. Huntingtona, translated by Sławomir Dymczyk, Poznań.
18.
Inglehart, R., 2003. Culture and Democracy, [in:] Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, ed. L. Harrisona, S. Huntingtona, translated by Sławomir Dymczyk, Poznań.
19.
Inglehart, R., Terry Clark N., 1990. The New Political Culture, Chicago.
20.
Inglehart, R., Norris P., 2009. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World, Warsaw.
21.
Kamiński, A. Z., 2012. Instytucje polityczne wobec układów nieformalnych: nomadzi instytucjonalni i flexianie, [in:] Instytucje: konflikty i dysfunkcje, ed. M. Jarosz, Warsaw.
22.
Karsten, F., Beckman K., 2012. Beyond Democracy, Warsaw.
23.
Khanna, P., 2020. The future is Asian: Commerce, Conflict and Culture in the 21st Century, Wrocław.
24.
Kowalik, S., 2015. Uśpione społeczeństwo. Szkice z psychologii globalizacji, Warsaw.
25.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. von, 2012. Demokratie. Eine Analyse, Warsaw.
26.
Kurczewska, J., 1997. Technokraci i ich świat społeczny, Warsaw.
27.
Levitsky, S., Ziblatt D., 2018. How Democracies Die, Łódź.
28.
Lewandowski, P., Gębska M., 2021. Part 1: Geoeconomics as a Paradigm for Research on International Security, European Research Studies Journal, 24, 4B.
29.
Lewandowski, P., Gębska M., 2022 Part 2. Geoeconomic Leaders Among the Three Seas Initiative Countries. Part 2: Research Results. European Research Studies Journal, 25.
30.
Lewandowski, P., 2021., Trzecia nowoczesność i koncepcja władzy instrumentalnej Shoshan Zuboff, Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki.
31.
Lilla, M., 2018. The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics, Warsaw.
32.
Marcuse, H., 1991. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Warsaw.
33.
Markowski, R., 2021. Wyzwania demokracji 21 wieku: ile kontynuacji, ile innowacji?, [in:] Polska w Europie jutra. Polityka europejska Polski w kontekście zmian międzynarodowych w XXI wieku, ed. J. Niżnik, Warsaw.
34.
Mattei, R. De, 2009. La dittatura del relativismo, Warsaw.
35.
Mill, J. S., 1995. Considerations on Representative Government: The Subjection of Women, Kraków.
36.
Nawrocki, M., 2021. Drapieżcze tożsamości i populistyczna communitas immunitarne konstruowanie wspólnoty w prawicowych dyskursach populistycznych, Stan rzeczy 1, 20.
37.
Pańków, I., 2020. Demokracja w recesji? Diagnozy i projekty naprawcze, Zoon Politikon 11.
38.
Pawełczyńska, A., 2014. Głowy hydry. O przewrotności współczesnego zła, Łomianki.
39.
Pieliński, K., 2011. Koniec historii – utopia technokratyczna, Economy and Management, 3.
40.
Postman, N., 2004. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Warsaw.
41.
Robinson, J. A., 1999. When is a State Predatory?, CESifo Working Paper 178.
42.
Sękowski, S., 2021. Zalety i wady pogoni za rentą. Renta polityczna w różnych paradygmatach badawczych, Studia z Polityki Publicznej 2.
43.
Szmyd, J., 2017. Nowoczesny konsumpcjonizm – zmiana kondycji ludzkiej i jakości życia. Wyzwania społeczne i pedagogiczne, Kultura. Przemiany. Edukacja 5.
44.
Wartości i zmiany. Przemiany postaw Polaków w jednoczącej się Europie, 2012. Ed. A. Jasińskiej- Kani, Warsaw.
45.
Wojciuk, A., 2016. Imperia wiedzy. Edukacja i nauka jako czynniki siły pastwa na arenie międzynarodowej, Warsaw.
46.
Zacher, L. W., 2015. Utechnicznienie człowieka i marketyzacja jego działalności a kultura przyszłości, Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej 85.
47.
Zuboff, S., 2020. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Warsaw.