Page - 255 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

state, democracy, socialism 255 UnlikeMaxAdler,however,hewas far removedfromassociating theachieve- ment of freedom in the collective sensewith the socialist order. Rather, he advocatedethical individualism:democracy’s aimwas to secure for individu- als a right to privacy and protect inalienable rights, interests, and opinions. The state, evenone foundedon theprinciple of popular sovereignty, should notencroachuponthese.Nonetheless, freedomunderdemocraticconditions was not to beunderstood as individualist anarchism, but as a principle that facilitatedunified,collectiveactionwithintheframeworkoftheadoptedlegal order.Freedomunderstoodinthisway,Bauerargued,securedlegalprotection forminorities and granted them free expression. It therefore offeredminor- ities ampleopportunity tobecome themajority andallowed forpower tobe reassigned.BauerbasedhisassumptionthattheSocialDemocratswouldeven- tuallygaincommandof the leversofpoweronthispremise. Inhisearly texts, he typicallyneglected theprinciplesof social andeconomicequalityasbasic prerequisites for democracy. This not only betrayed the influenceofKelsen’s thought, butalso testified to theclassicalAustromarxistproclivity for favour- ingthepoliticaloversocialemancipation. One may wonder whether Bauer was not wary that certain excesses of the democratic state order, towardwhichbothKelsen andMaxWeberwere vigilant, might pose a threat to political democracy itself. That is, its tend- ency towards bureaucratisation (political representatives losing touch with the electorate), party leaders striving to increase their influence in the exec- utivesphere,andultimately, thepropensityofdelegatestoputtheirownparty interestsabovetheinterestsofvoters.Inreality,Bauerhadnosuchreservations, sinceheoverestimatedthepotentialofthedemocraticpoliticalorder.Thefirst reasonwas that in the early stages ofmoderndemocracy, these threatswere notaspronouncedas theyarenow.ThesecondwasthatBauer, likeKarlPop- permanyyearslater,thoughtthatpoliticaldemocracyallowedthegovernedto fullyregulatethegovernmentandthuspreventabusesofpower.21 TherewasalsoasociologicallogictoBauer’sapproachtodemocracy,albeita latentone.Inhisview,prioritisingformalcategories–forexample,themajority andfreedomprinciplesasformallyunderstood–aboveclassdidnotimplythat the largest concern for thesocial contentofpowerwasbrushedaside.Marx’s theory one-sidedly equated political democracy with bourgeois democracy, which it regardedas anapparatusof class rule andoppression.According to Marxian doctrine, the economy thwarted the autonomy of politics. In light ofWestern democracies, Bauer far from reduced himself to such simplistic 21 SeePopper1945,p. 119.