Ochlocracy ( or
okhlokratía; ) is
government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of
constitutional authorities. In
English, the word
mobocracy is sometimes used as a
synonym. As a pejorative for
majoritarianism, it is akin to the
Latin phrase
mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd," from which the term "mob" originally derives.
As a term in
civics it implies that there is no formal
authority whatsoever, not even a commonly accepted view of
anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by
brute force −
might makes right, but only in a very local and
temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision. It is often associated with
demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason. It may be considered an
ad hoc democracy.
Terminology
The term appears to have been coined by
Polybius in his
Histories (6.4.6). He uses it to name the 'pathological' version of popular rule in opposition to the good version, which he refers to as democracy. There are numerous mentions of the word "ochlos" in the
Talmud (where "ochlos" refers to anything from "mob," "populace" to "armed guard"), as well as in
Rashi, a Jewish commentary on the Bible. The word is recorded in English since 1584, derived from the French
ochlocratie (1568), which stems from the original Greek
okhlokratia, from
okhlos "mob" and
kratos "rule, power, strength"
In ancient Greek political thought ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy). The distinction between "good" and "bad" was made according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community ("good") or special interests ("bad").
An
ochlocrat is one who is an advocate or partisan of ochlocracy. It can also be used as an adjective
(
ochlocratic or
ochlocratical).
Whether or not the decisions enforced by a mob are
good or
bad is another matter entirely. The
threat of
mob rule (not unlike the term
tyranny of the majority) is often invoked -often rhetorically- against a democracy by those who oppose its majoritary decisions, sometimes fearing oppression of the needs or freedoms of minorities if democratic government is not efficiently restrained by protections given to individuals under the
rule of law, sometimes concerned that demagogery may manipulate the mob and force popular currents of thought onto
minority groups without respect for their or the individual's rights. There are also some who wish to see more power assigned to a certain
ruling minority.
A mob, however massive, and regardless of claims to speak for 'the people', may or may not be representative of the (often silent) majority in a large society (which usually practices
indirect democracy). It may be composed of a specific segment of the population interested in a specific issue, and drawn from a limited geographical space or it may be a representative popular majority.
Mobs in history
Historians often comment on mob rule as a factor in the
rise of Rome and its maintenance, as the city of
Rome itself was large − between 100,000 and 250,000 citizens − while the
aristocracy and even
military was very small by comparison to the citizenry. With weapons also being crude, the military force did not exist that could have dealt with a revolt from the larger populace. There was a constant need to
keep people fed, distracted, and in awe of the power of the state. Those who could do this, ruled not only Rome, but the whole of the
Roman Empire.
Lapses in this control often led to loss of power, or even the loss of heads, of officials − most notably in the reign of
Commodus when
Cleander unwisely used the
Praetorian Guard against a mob which had come to call for his head. As
Edward Gibbon relates it,
This followed a previous incident in which the
legions of Britain had demanded and received the death of
Perennis, the prior administrator. The mob thus realized that it had every chance of success.
"Mobs" used to affect policy
One of the characteristics of a free and open society is that its people retain the right to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for the redress of grievances.
During the
French Revolution, the mobs in
Paris played a similar function, but were more carefully manipulated by political leaders who sensed that they had the power to dispose of
monarchy entirely, as they did, eventually setting up a
representative democracy (which in turn fell to
Napoleon's model of semi-
constitutional monarchy).
The modern theories of
civil disobedience and
satyagraha do not bear resemblance to "mob rule" and its mechanics, as the purpose of such acts is to demonstrate that a part of the people will not comply with and will openly defy tyrannical and usurpatious laws or governments while
forgoing the use of the violence and force that the mob of ancient times employed. Instead, the object of these non-violent techniques is to provide a moral choice to those with the power to use force, to either admit to the injustice of the law or the government, to allow the law or the government to be defied, or to use force and violence against the demonstrators in an effort to force the will of the state upon those who peacefully yet defiantly refuse to comply with unjust laws or governments.
Traditional non-violent protest theory holds that if the demonstrators are restrained and do not do any violence, yet refuse to back down, then they automatically win, as they either will be joined by the forces they face, be allowed to defy the law or government openly and peacefully, or be physically attacked, struck down, and made into powerful moral symbols of the lengths to which the agents of the state will go to enforce usurpatious and tyrannical laws or governmental powers, however, police forces around the world have become adept at making such gatherings irrelevant by limiting them to areas, in some cases dubbed "
free speech zones," sufficiently separate from the object of their discontent, the rest of the public, and the media, to make them easily ignored. Permitting requirements in many jurisdictions effectively make demonstrations without advance police permission illegal. Various efforts to increase demonstrators communal intelligence and mobility using cell phone networks and bicycles have been employed to circumvent crowd control and marginalizing techniques with speed.
Flash mobs and
Critical Mass style "bike block" actions are examples experimented with, with mixed results, notably during the
2004 Republican National Convention.
Modern theory concludes that since Roman guards, facing
crucifixion for disobedience, could be swayed by mobs, it is also possible to sway modern
police, even in a
police state. The
1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines, the
Velvet Revolution in former
Czechoslovakia, and the resistance to
the attempted military coup in the
Soviet Union in 1991 that led to the
collapse of that state, are situations where it is possible that it was the "mob" which won the day due to defections by authority.
Other mobs
The term "mob" is also sometimes used to describe
organized crime. Since it is relatively simple for the criminal element to exploit public strife, for example by
looting, or grabbing power by means of
fraud, there is some resonance in that "mob rule" can be described as having power held by those people who exploit or create mobs by leading them into violence.
In certain places with a dubious record of
representative democracy, physical control of
polling stations is a form of mob rule that determines who wins: whoever can bring out more supporters to keep the opposing
political party out, wins.
Political privacy is very often nonexistent in this kind of condition, so retribution against defectors is easy.
See also
