The Introduction to Political Science class was one of the best and most interesting classes I came across during my university experience. At the beginning, I thought that I would learn about how to be a politician or how to run for mayor. I was surprised to see a theoretical course asking some deep questions.
What is a state?
Where does legitimacy come from?
If there is one takeaway from this class that I would want to share with the world, it is that our modern understanding of the state, democracy, politics, and everything else is nothing but a framework thought of and built by people just like me and you. It seems to be working for now, which is why it is adopted everywhere.
However, this doesn't mean that this will be the case forever. It also doesn't mean that we can't think of something better. The person who could conceive of that could be me or you.
When it came time for our research papers, I found myself fascinated with a question. In our current day and time, liberal values seem to be disintegrating in the face of a storm of conservative and populist movements that have been rising over the past decade. I took a step further and dared to say that democracy and liberalism themselves sow the seeds of their own destruction. My professor liked the idea and supported me with this topic.
I made heavy use of AI in writing so I could meet my deadline. However, it is the content and analysis of this paper that are interesting and worth the time.
Introduction
Looking at the current landscape around the world, we can observe that we are living in an unstable time for Liberal Democracy. We can see examples of strong men trying to undermine democratic institutions. The United States, the birthplace of modern democracy, elected Trump as president during the 2024 election. Since he assumed office, he has worked to dismantle several government institutes, indicated a shift in the US foreign policy, taking a more aggressive approach, and has expressed firmness in his pursuit of the republican plan. In South Korea, there is an attempt by the president to overthrow the establishment and assume absolute power, which was only stopped by the swift intervention of the parliament and the masses. In Europe, there is a clear shift toward being more apparent with the recent win of Giorgia Meloni and her far-right party in Italy.
What we see in all of these cases is a clear popular anger toward previous regimes. The argument is that the previous governments have dragged the country through an economic downturn, social inequalities, and political stagnation. This anger and frustration were capitalized by these leaders. In a podcast episode, political scientist Steve Levitsky summarizes this by saying that the previous policies have caused an “ethnic majority to lose their status, and this has triggered a reaction”. To expand on these words further, a deep anger and resentment have been brewing in a large segment of society, which these leaders have managed to fuel and exploit. The question then becomes, what are the root causes of this resentment against the democratic establishment?
Since these governments still work within the liberal democratic framework, it must be that there are elements inherent within liberal democracy that are causing this fracture within the framework. This paper has set out to identify some of these elements. One major finding of this research was C. B. Macpherson’s “The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke”. In this book, Macpherson goes in depth about the origins of liberal thought. The point of interest from this book is his critique of Liberal Democracy and his identification of “limitations and contradictions” inherent within possessive individualism, which in turn is presented at the center of liberal democratic thinking (Macpherson, The Political Theory).
This paper will serve as an introduction to Macpherson’s theory of possessive individualism. Furthermore, it will try to relate his ideas to the current fragmentation in liberal democracy by examining neoliberalism, populism, and how these two ideologies have exacerbated this fragmentation. Neoliberalism focuses on market-driven solutions and minimal state intervention. This has intensified the focus of the individual and the market interest. On the other hand, populist movements born out of these conditions have served to undermine the checks and balances on power in democratic governments. To understand these core ideas, we need to first examine the idea of possessive individualism, which is core to tying everything together.
Possessive Individualism
Possessive Individualism can be understood as a concept that serves to critique liberal democracy. At its core, it states that within liberal thought, the individual is seen as the proprietor of his capacities while owing nothing to society. Freedom is identified by possession of things. Society is then viewed not as an intricate relation of shared responsibilities and reciprocal interactions, but as a race toward possession of things. He argues that while these concepts have developed within relation to the conditions faced during the period of the establishment of modern political thought, they offer a narrow and materialistic view of the current reality. Moreover, they lead to a transfer of power from those with less access to means of labor (less possession) to those who have more. This leads to a rise in inequality. Macpherson considered liberal democracy to be a dual system. One for politics and one for the economy. Liberalism promotes equality and personal freedom, while capitalism serves to create this very inequality that liberalism is trying to avoid. This contradiction is not seen as a side effect, but as a misalignment of two systems, one based in thought and the other in reality. For instance, Locke’s thought, which will be explored below, is painted as being contradictory in presenting society as demanding equality but requiring social inequality. Overall, understanding possessive individualism leads to better insight into the contradiction within the liberal democratic framework, and Macpherson tried to go further by saving the framework from this contradiction.
From Hobbs to Locke
Macpherson, although identified as a Marxist by some, positioned himself as a liberal trying to save liberalism. His hope was to revise liberal democracy in order to make it more democratic, and to rescue it from its identification with market capitalism. He argues that possessive individualism was developed and entrenched early in parallel with the development of liberal thought.
Thomas Hobbes: His views on social structure and human nature were a crucial starting point for liberal thought. His main argument is that the human thirst for “power after power” is the main drive for action. Man is set to possess things through power while being opposed by others’ power. This view presents a model of society that permits the invasion of every man by every other. Society then becomes a mechanism that enhances this motion toward power and possession. Macpherson explains that this world view is heavily influenced by the unstable times that Hobbes lived through after the Thirty Years War. He links Hobbs’s idea on the thirst for power to the drive for possession in his framework. He argues that since men are unequal in strength, it is natural that some will acquire more than others. This leads not only to more inequality, but also to some controlling the means of labor on which others depend. This, in turn, is tied to the transfer of power mentioned above.
The Levellers: As explained above, possessive individualism is identified as the individual being the owner of his capacities while owing nothing to society. Macpherson presented the Levellers as early articulators of this idea. Their main point of view was that the individual was the owner of his means of labor. They further discussed how this ownership should be translated into political power, such as voting. The Levellers presented a new movement of liberal thought and paved the way for later thinkers such as John Locke.
John Locke: He is considered by many as the founder who gave liberalism its positive tone and propelled it to be a global political ideology. At its center is the idea of the natural rights of an individual as long as those rights do not cause harm to others. Macpherson’s critique of Locke lies primarily in his theory of property. Within this theory, the primary role of the political society is the protection of property. This opens the possibility of unlimited accumulation of wealth, mainly through the introduction of money into the hands of the few. This builds the foundation for possessive individualism and the aforementioned transfer of power. Macpherson highlights that Locke’s theories paint an apparent reality of equality, but conceal the real social and economic inequalities.
This analysis shows us that both Hobbs and Locke have sown the seeds of the elements which have shaped the worldview within the liberal democratic framework. These elements have gained coherence and influence over time and have become ingrained within the social, political, and economic realities. This idea of the possessive individual who owns nothing to society finds an intensified expression within neoliberalism. Which will be explained below.
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism presents a resurgence of free market capitalist ideas, which came into the forefront at the beginning of the 20th century after the great depression. It tries to extend free market competition to all aspects of life, including the political, social, and economic domains. Key policies include deregulation, privatization, and minimal state intervention. Many argue that neoliberalism is contributing to the situation that democracy is going through today. The point they state is that the promotion of free market principles and policies displaces democratic ones. These new principles have worsened the conditions of the middle and lower classes and, in many ways, pushed a segment of society toward the right. However, this relationship is not supported through empirical evidence, but it is rather observed in how free market ideas penetrate social and political life.
Looking through the lens of possessive individualism, we see that freedom is defined through ownership. Whether it was referring to the person owning their labor and capacities, or to how the ownership of wealth and property is related to the political expression. Applying free market principles and prioritizing efficiency over social good only magnifies the inherent contradictions presented in possessive individualism. The emergent social conditions and market-driven perspective lay the groundwork for the rise of populist movements that serve to undercut the checks and balances in democracy, which will be explained in detail below.
Populism
The world view discussed has painted two far pictures. The first picture is that of liberal thought, where everyone is equal in pursuing their capacities. The other is that of the liberal reality, where those with more access to means of labor can accumulate power through their transfer from the lower class, who have less access. This creates a reality of inequality where these lower classes feel powerless and resentful. This resentment, in turn, is the fuel for populist movements. These movements are characterized by two major points. The first is a rise against the elite, or in other words, those who have accumulated power. The second is that these movements are led by leaders who represent these people and who know how to direct the movement toward the shared goal of gaining what has been taken. However, as liberal democratic reality is the one that the state and society build upon, these movements aim to attack the democratic establishment to achieve their aims. One dangerous side effect is that these movements undermine the establishment, which in turn disables the checks and balances that are put against the government and presidential power. This gives more power and authority to the leader and moves the situation toward a more authoritarian form of government. Many movements we see today, especially those in the US, follow this pattern.
The Road Toward Cooperative Individualism
Possessive individualism, thus far, has been presented as the crack in liberal democracy. As explained above, it is a broad concept that highlights how a liberal society views the individual as having possession of himself and his abilities, owing nothing to society. Moreover, society is seen as a market where people exchange these possessions, such as labor, while the government’s role is to maintain these properties. Property, in this case, includes liberty and freedom for an individual. Machpherson argued that this capitalist interpretation of liberalism needs a fundamental change if liberal democracy is to be preserved. He proposed to rethink the idea of property. Throughout its historical development, property has transformed from being a means to satisfy human need, as envisioned by Locke, to an argument about domination over the means of production. In Macpherson’s opinion, true realization of human needs will reside not in the exclusive right to own something, but in the right not to be excluded from benefiting from things that have been created by the whole of society, even if they do not own a piece of them. Using this definition will create a society of shared responsibility where possessive individualism will not work anymore. Macpherson has proposed a new vision for liberal democracy which detaches it from capitalism and possessive individualism. However, he did not present any concrete steps that can be implemented to take us toward that vision. In this regard, Macpherson’s argument falls short of being more focused on theory rather than practice.
Final Thoughts
This paper has set out to identify the theoretical bases for a practical problem that is seen today. Specifically, dissatisfaction with liberal democracy and the populist movements trying to shift away from it. Macpherson’s analysis of liberal democracy and his concept of possessive individualism are a useful placeholder for representing the fundamental problem with liberalism since its origins. Unfortunately, Macpherson’s work was focused on theory, and he did not show the road that will help solve the problems we see today. To try to identify some kind of solution, we need to look elsewhere.
Like Macpherson, the American linguist Noam Chomsky offers a contemporary critique of neoliberalism. He explains that since the 1970s, the neoliberal movement has dismantled social structures and solidarity. Quoting Margaret Thatcher, he says that “there is no society, only individuals”. More and more decision-making power has been moved into the hands of a few individuals while the rights of the people, workers, and women have been described as a “special interest”. The decline of social and economic conditions for the majority of people leads to anger, discontent, and fear. Chomsky describes this as a natural consequence and does not call it populism. Moreover, He describes this as a phenomenon that is happening all over the world, including the United States, where it is more apparent. He defines this as a core issue that could threaten the existence of modern life. In his words, humans have created two means of destruction, nuclear weapons and environmental disaster. With the rise of the neoliberal era, we have dismantled our way of dealing with them. He mentions a memorandum by American Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. This memorandum is considered to represent the core of modern conservative thinking. The highlight of this memorandum is Powell’s idea that the left took everything, and to push against them, they need to use all the available resources. In Chomsky’s point of very, the dismantling of democratic institutions is very real, and something needs to be done about it. First, participation and decision-making power must be returned to the people. He argues that there should be a more educated and active public that can act together to push back against this undermining of democracy and the erosion of social solidarity.
In his book and article about the “age of anger,” Pankaj Mishra offers a beautiful perspective on the issue. He explains that following the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was much hope that liberal values would triumph and global society would transition toward more democracy and human rights. However, the years that followed painted a very different picture. Terrorist attacks, polarization, Brexit, and the rise of the far right are among the various other realities we experience today. Mishra ties the issue back to human nature. He highlights the faults adopted by liberal thinkers in their definition of the human being. Their model of the rational indivdual in pursuit of self interest has had a great influence over the past century. However, this definition ignores human emotions. Specifically those of envy, resentment, and anger (Mishra). Much of the sentiment against the west and against liberal ideas cannot be understood with looking at the feelings of humlation and resentment that these poeple possess against these ideas. In the 1830’s, Alexis de Tocqueville warned that “The passion for equality could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties, and to long for the rule of a strongman”. The democractic ideals of equality and invidual empowerment has never been more difficult to realise. The neoliberal world create classes of winners and losers where under free competition, losers have nothing to blame other than their poor choices. People feel helpless and they want to take back control. What we see today of the eruption in settinment after an event such as a Trump victory is accoding to Mishra a sign of people who suffered in silence for a long time. He urges to increase our understanding of what is means to be a human being to be anchored more in emotion stating that the “famous end of history – is precisely what has made us incapable of grasping the political phenomena shaking the world today.” He argues that a solution is still far from being grasped. The first essential step is to undertand the reality of what we have today and to rethink our understanding of freedom, equality and prosperity.
Conclusion
This paper has tried to explain the reality of today through the lens of possessive individualism as well as presenting alternative points of view from Chomsky and Mishra. All the ideas presented lead to the same conclusion, the rise in resentful sentiment against liberal ideas and democratic institutions. In the words of Tocqueville, “people liberated from old hierarchies want equality in freedom, and, if they cannot get it, they still want it in slavery.” I think these words present a powerful explanation on the nature of human beings whereby people would rather choose slavery over freedom as long as it satisfy their passion such as that for equality. The undermining of democratic institutes, the rise of strongmen, and the shift toward the right can all be explained through this concept. Wether we are experiencing a serious threat to liberal democracy is yet to be seen. People tend to imagine themselves living to historic times, often exaggerating the consequences of minor issues. However, it is evidently clear that there is an urgent need to revise liberal democratic ideas and their understanding and definitions of the human nature, equality, and the dynamic between individuals and society.
Work Cited
Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 27, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5–19, muse.jhu.edu/article/607612.
Brown, Wendy, and Francis Wade. “The Violent Exhaustion of Liberal Democracy - Boston Review.” Boston Review, 22 Oct. 2024, www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-violent-exhaustion-of-liberal-democracy/.
Cas Mudde. “Democracy Is in a Doom Spiral—but It Isn’t Dead Yet.” Prospectmagazine.co.uk, 2024, www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/democracy/68694/democracy-doom-spiral-elections.
Grillo, Edoardo, et al. “Theories of Democratic Backsliding.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 27, 18 Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041322-025352.
Hayes, Chris. “How Democratic Backsliding Happens with Steve Levitsky.” Apple Podcasts, 10 Dec. 2024, podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-democratic-backsliding-happens-with-steve-levitsky/id1382983397?i=1000679858361. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.
Little, Andrew T., and Anne Meng. “Measuring Democratic Backsliding.” PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 57, no. 2, 11 Jan. 2024, pp. 1–13, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-democratic-backsliding/9EE2044CDA598BD815349912E61189D8, https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652300063X.
Lydon, Christopher. “Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy.” Www.thenation.com, 2 June 2017, www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/.
McKay, Ian. “A Half-Century of Possessive Individualism: C.B. Macpherson and the Twenty-First-Century Prospects of Liberalism.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, vol. 25, no. 1, 28 Aug. 2015, pp. 307–340, https://doi.org/10.7202/1032806ar. Accessed 12 Oct. 2020.
---. “Are We Witnessing the Death of Liberal Democracy?” The Conversation, 16 May 2019, theconversation.com/are-we-witnessing-the-death-of-liberal-democracy-117085.
Mechkova, Valeriya, et al. “How Much Democratic Backsliding?” Journal of Democracy, vol. 28, no. 4, 2017, pp. 162–169.
Mishra, Pankaj. “Welcome to the Age of Anger.” The Guardian, 8 Dec. 2016, www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump.
Norris, Pippa. “Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks.” Papers.ssrn.com, 7 Mar. 2017, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2933655.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett. “The Death of Liberalism.” Google Books, 2025, books.google.iq/books?hl=en&lr=&id=T1VbYIwhh50C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=death+of+liberal+democracy&ots=mHLc2GJAy3&sig=-pJSfmyr86zc1_hXULuWdl_CiG4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=death%20of%20liberal%20democracy&f=false. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.