Democracy, as a progressive realization of the egalitarian ideal, is struggling to function properly within the contemporary age, predominantly due to the insatiable individualism that western society currently fosters. This observation is not new, having been discussed by a wide range of social commentators including critical theorists such as Jürgen Habermas, Christian theologians like John Milbank, and political theorists, for example the late Norberto Bobbio.

In the process of causing democracy’s ethos to stumble, the recent onslaught of neo-liberalism - an economic ideology that celebrates consumerism and individual autonomy - has allowed us to recognize that even democratic regimes can degenerate into tyrannical institutions. This stems from an inherent problem rooted within democratic culture itself.

The nature of the problem is curiously paradoxical. Democratic culture is fundamentally based upon the principle of the equality of condition. Yet equality of condition, as in the type endorsed by neo-liberal philosophy, is in-fact the fundamental enemy of democratic culture, having a doubly negative impact upon democracy’s potential for success.

First, the principle of the equality of condition has resulted in making individuals feel independent, and has thus produced massive social atomization. Every individual is primarily concerned with his or her own material interests. As a result, the complete loss of social solidarity renders it impossible for democratic culture to flourish. At the same time, increased societal atomization makes it extremely easy for governments to deceitfully manipulate public opinion, mainly for their own gains.

More often than not, this manipulation centres upon atomized society’s fears. Democratic governments frequently claim to be defending us from the terrorist or the immigrant. Yet, in order to provide us with a full defence against these threats, they claim justification in the suspension of basic democratic virtues including habeas corpus, free speech, freedom of the press and humane conduct. In the process of doing so, this opens the path towards petty autocracy.

An example of such a slide is illustrated through the case of GuantanamoBay detention centre, created during the Bush administration by capitalizing on the post 9/11 climate of fear sweeping across the United States.

Second, in democratic cultures where everyone is equal in principle, the real exercise of power rests upon public opinion, the clearest expression of the will of a majority of citizens. However, there is no reason to assume that public opinion will equate to what is morally good, or that it will accord with the law. This problem comes to the fore when a majority public opinion dominates that of a minority. Here, democratic culture runs the risk of becoming what Alexis De Tocqueville deemed ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

In the modern state, the democratic system is beset by a multitude of contrary interests, making it simply impossible for democracy to satisfy each individual concern. There is no ultimate equality of views, only a competition of interests, and eventually democracy will recognise the interest upon which there is the most consensus. At this moment, the democratic ideal of egalitarianism is lost, and ill effects ensue.

The case of the 2008 California Marriage Protection Act offers an example of the ability of majority public opinion to become oppressive. Directly voted for by a 52% majority of Californians during the 2008 general election ballot, the Act denies same sex couples the constitutional right to marry in the state California. Though it has recently been challenged by one district court judge, the general feeling is that the majority support for the Act will ultimately ensure it prevails, even if this involves a Supreme Court ruling.

In sum, it is evident that the crisis democratic culture finds itself in stems from the limited social parameters of neo-liberalism, which has brought with it massive inequality, atomization and injustice. With the failure of the secular creeds – socialism, communism – to challenge neo-liberalism’s social ills, it may at first glance seem that democratic culture, lacking an antidote against the negative restraints of the neo-liberal virus, is doomed.

To rescue democratic culture from this slip into neo-liberal despotism, we must focus our thought upon a fresh openness towards religion, and the redeeming qualities it holds.

Primarily, religion promotes solidarity. This then, is in direct opposition to the neo-liberal principle of discord. A solid community of individuals can operate as a strong social unit and, therefore, cannot become easily enslaved to tyrannical institutions.

Additionally, religion provides a source for morality and the moral guidance of people. Democracy can only function if there exists within a moral sense of tolerance, and the pursuit of truth and justice for its own sake. Religion can influence public opinion and direct the customs of a community towards this ideal. As a result, religion can provide the moral soil upon which democratic culture can bloom.

Finally, in direct opposition to the fundamental aspect of neo-liberal philosophy, religion deals in immaterial matters and centres the individual’s train of thought upon eternal issues not of this world. Religion then can provide a remedy against the unrestrained, avaricious individualism that modern society harbours. In doing so, we can observe that religion provides a path for democratic culture’s salvation.

Jack Reid is a Masters Graduate from the University of Manchester in the field of religion and politics. He recently completed an internship at Theos.