Introduction
Modern liberal democracies face an escalating tension between institutional procedures and the lived experience of citizens. Yascha Mounk identifies this as “undemocratic liberalism,” a state in which democratic institutions remain intact but responsiveness to the public voice diminishes, replaced by technocratic meritocracy.
In this current, state administrations often adopt a paternalistic “teacher” role, viewing citizens as cognitively vulnerable subjects to be guided or protected, rather than autonomous agents (see: blog posts ninety-six and ninety-seven).
To counter this, a systemic intervention is required to transition the state from a model of epistemic paternalism to one of epistemic responsiveness. This shift utilizes the logic of “observation-first” professional roles — modeled on the school psychologist or pedagogist — to safeguard societal autonomy.
The epistemic shift: From “guardianship” to “observation-first” governance
A primary characteristic of undemocratic liberalism is the tendency for administrations to view their own procedures as “fact-speaking” (objective and final) while categorizing citizen concerns as “belief-speaking” (subjective, erroneous, or noise).
- The intervention: State institutions must adopt an observation-first mandate. This requires a formal “observation phase” in the policy-making cycle where the state is prohibited from immediately correcting or steering public input.
- The objective: By allowing social reality to “be” before subjecting it to the logic of “rules are rules,” the state acknowledges the autonomy of the citizen’s experience rather than acting as its sole arbiter.
The structural shift: Establishing “epistemic buffers”
The failure of neutral facilitation often stems from the fact that facilitators are also outcome-driven administrators. To scale democratic responsiveness, the state must decouple administrative rule-makers (the “teachers”) from deliberative facilitators (the “psychologists”).
- The intervention: The creation of Interdemocracy units within administrations. These units are staffed by professionals trained in observation and facilitation - such as sociologists or psychologists - rather than technocrats or policy experts. This is a transitional intervention. Ultimately, administrative staff needs to be capable of fulfilling both roles.
- The role: These units protect the space for “belief-speaking,” ensuring that the technocratic procedural attitude does not sanitize or override public input. Their goal is to ensure the “resilience battery” of both the community and individuals is being charged through genuine engagement.
Redefining success: The “resilience battery” as a KPI
Technocratic governance traditionally judges legitimacy based on “usefulness” and adherence to existing procedure. This creates a closed loop that ignores the erosion of individual agency.
- The intervention: Autonomy and agency must be adopted as measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), equivalent in importance to economic efficiency or safety.
- The metric: The resilience battery — comprising autonomy, belonging, and achievement — serves as the yardstick. If a state intervention increases safety but “crushes” agency, it must be officially flagged as a “resilience failure.” This forces institutions to recognize when “rules are rules” becomes a form of institutional pathology.
Cognitive strength: From top-down guarding to bottom-up autopoiesis
The paternalistic state justifies its intervention by claiming citizens are “easily misled” by misinformation. This leads to a guardianship model that treats the public as victims.
- The intervention: A transition from top-down dealing with FIMI to bottom-up autopoietic strengthening.
- The logic: Instead of the state simply “debunking” information and replacing it with “correct” facts and narratives - StratCom - (a teacher-like correction), it provides the infrastructure for citizens to articulate their own judgments and see them impact decision-making. When citizens exercise autonomous judgment, they develop an identity more resistant to external manipulation. Enhanced autonomy is an effective defense against cognitive vulnerability.
Ethical framework: The non-totalitarian relation
Paternalism often seeks to erase small, irreducible “islands of belonging” in favor of a uniform, normative picture of the citizen.
- The intervention: Adopting a “psychologist state” model that recognizes the layered nature of the individual. This model acknowledges that the state can never fully know, nor should fully know the total reality of its citizens.
- The result: This transforms the state from a governor of meaning (an entity that defines truth for its subjects) into a neutral infrastructure for autonomy.
Conclusion
Countering the undemocratic liberal current requires a state that listens before it knows. By institutionalizing “belief-speaking” and observation-first roles, a feedback loop is created that forces technocratic systems to confront the irreducible reality of the people they serve. The law remains a necessary tool, but it is redefined as a servant of human autonomy rather than a moral end in itself.