Introduction
The design of liberal democracy requires an upgrade. Since the constitutional frameworks of Montesquieu and James Madison were developed, the nature of democratic vulnerability has changed profoundly. Whereas the central challenge of early liberal constitutionalism was the decentralization of coercive political power against monarchy and autocracy, contemporary democracies increasingly face the concentration of epistemic and informational power in the hands of big tech and media molochs. It is time for a new round of democratization and decentralization.
Harmful solutions
The need for democratization and decentralization is not well understood. Numerous harmful epistemic solutions are currently pursued, such as undemocratic liberalism, illiberal democracy, and populism. These approaches seek to create epistemic counter-concentrations while disenfranchising others. Undemocratic liberals propose concentrating epistemic power away from the general public in the hands of meritocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elites, buffering institutions and procedures in the process. Illiberal democrats and populists aim for the opposite: concentrating epistemic power in the hands of “the people”, or rather their representatives, while dismantling institutions and procedures in the process.
Both approaches ultimately mirror the underlying pathology of big tech and media molochs: the progressive concentration and closure of epistemic authority. In both cases, increasingly insulated interpretive systems emerge in which self-reinforcing narratives gradually alienate governing groups from broader social reality and democratic reciprocity. Ultimately, both approaches risk uncompromising epistemic entrenchment fueled by naïve realism.
Reflex
The reflex of fighting concentrated power with concentrated power is understandable. But just as installing an almighty president does not resolve the pathologies of absolute monarchy, concentrating epistemic authority in the hands of a small group as a counterweight to big tech and media concentration does not create an open epistemic playing field. Instead, it risks producing an even more alienating and epistemically totalizing social order.
Leap of faith
Just as uniting the initial thirteen independent American states under a central constitution that fragmented political power took a leap of faith, so does trusting fragmented epistemic power. The constitutional system of checks and balances presupposed a citizenry capable of participating within a sufficiently shared public reality. Citizens were not considered immune to being mobilized behind authoritarian figures, which is precisely why constitutional guardrails were installed to mitigate such risks. Variants of this mistrust of citizens remain visible within undemocratic liberal approaches today.
New paradigm
But the information age has changed the paradigm. Rather than primarily facing the risk of citizens collapsing into a single irrational mass, democracies increasingly face the risk of epistemic fragmentation. Individuals with non-mainstream perspectives are no longer structurally isolated but can now find mutual validation, coordination, and supportive communities across the world. The concentration of epistemic infrastructure in the hands of big tech and media molochs potentially weaponizes this fragmentation.
The answer to fragmentation is not a counter-concentration. Such an approach would likely further alienate citizens with non-mainstream perspectives and potentially intensify radicalization dynamics. The answer is to de-weaponize fragmentation itself by strengthening citizen autonomy, autonomous perspective formation, reciprocal correction, and resistance to epistemic tribalization. And this brings us to Interdemocracy and Resilience Councils.