1

Derridas Self Destructive Democracy

Cayla Barbour
Providence College Undergraduate Student

cbarbour@friars.providence.edu
Jacques Derrida wrote his book Rogue in response to George W. Bushs
statement concerning rogue states in the Middle East that were
characterized as terrorism sponsors. Most of these states such as Iran, Iraq,
and North Korea have non-democratic governments. Derridas title is ironic
because he essentially critiques democracy as the rogue. He also refers to
the role of rouges, or rous as he calls them, in a democratic state. One of
the ultimate themes in Derridas book, especially in chapters 2 and 3, is that
democracy is not the simple singular term adapted to different governments
and glorified by leaders such as George W. Bush. Based on information
presented in the work, it is clear that there are major flaws in this ideal
constitution that allows for freedom and equality1. According to Derrida, the
true form of democracy is weak because it is an essence without essence
that, under the same name, and through a certain concept, would have no
aim.2 There is nothing concrete to define democracy except the basic
foundation of theoretical freedom for all; it has no aim good or evil and
that missing element allows the concept to be self destructive because one
rule can contain many meanings, misunderstandings, and paradoxes,
especially when it becomes the rule to govern. This paper will discuss the
unstable and self-destructive nature of democracy through its struggles to
1 This cohabitation of freedom and equality is actually a paradoxical illusion

that will be discussed later as Derrida portrays it

2 Jacques Derrida. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. (Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 2005.) 33.

balance democratic freedom with democratic license and freedom with

equality which creates problems for those who do not reside in the system. It
will also compare the weaknesses of democracy to those of globalization to
illustrate their similar instability that worries the world. This thesis will be
supported with examples from Derridas Rogues as well as the text The
Creation of the World or Globalization written by Jean-Luc Nancy3.
First, it is important to connect the struggle to balance democratic freedom
with democratic license to the inherent paradox of democracys definition.
Derrida uses Aristotle and Plato as the foundations for the most commonly
known definition of democracy and comments on their definition saying,
this portrait of democracy associates freedom or liberty (eleutheria) with
license (exousia) which is also whim, free will, freedom of choice, leisure to
follow ones desires, ease or facility, the faculty or power to do as one
pleases.4 There is a two-fold picture to democracy: one of liberty and one of
license, and the difference between the two is slight. In this paper, liberty is
interpreted simply as benevolent in the sense that it fosters just ideas of
freedom, and license has a more reckless connotation that has the sense of
access to free-for-alls and taking too many liberties5 as Derrida states.
3 Derrida and Nancy are also compared on their perceptions of justice in

Laura McMahons work The Justice of Images: Between Derrida and Nancy.
Jacques Derrida. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2005): 22.
4

5 Ibid: 21.

Democracy walks this line of liberty and license because it tries to balance
the just from the unjust, but the fundamental problems are the decision of
who can define just or unjust and when liberty becomes license. Essentially,
which group is allowed to say this is good and that is bad? Even in the phrase
free-for-all, it is hard to disassociate a bad connotation; why is this so? Why
is it so difficult to grant everybody license to their desires? More importantly,
why is there a divide in the groups?
According Nancy this is human nature because no two people will ever have
the same experience even if they are identical twins with the same
environment and upbringing. Every single person is individual with thoughts
and opinions of their own and for every similarity there is a gap between
people that is natural to human nature. Nancy is clear that these gaps arent
bad: the issueis to be attentive to the gap of meaning with itself, a gap
that constitutes it or that is its truth. Such a gap always places meaning in
excess or deficiency with respect to its own work.6 The gaps exist as a part
of the world and are presented through their existence among people and
what they signify. Humans categorize their existence based on the opinion of
the majority or those in power. Those who do not agree with that decision are
considered rogue or rou.
An example of this can be found in the movie the Battle of Algiers
because those in power the French decided that excess of French,

6 Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Creation of the World or Globalization. Trans. Francois

Raffoul. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007): 54.

western European ethnicity was good and that the Arabs those
deficient in the good were considered bad and were forced to live in
the Casbah under occupation7. Using the structures of Nancy, it is clear that
there is a divide among the different peoples, and the group in power had
made a decision on which extreme each side would be classified.
Reverting to general terms, this can be also seen in the rou. A gap is
identified in thought or action between the majority and the powerful. Those
who follow the majority or powerful are in the system and those who dont
are outside of it. Derrida says that In the idea of the rou, there is thus an
allusion to debauchery and perversity, to the subversive disrespect for
principles, norms, and good manners, for the rules and laws that govern the
circle of the decent, self respecting people, of respectable, right thinking
society (20). They are the scoundrels that cheat the system because they
are outside of it and dont agree with or fit into it. To those in the system and
make the rules, rous challenge what is right and that is what ultimately
makes them bad.
This is a problem for democracy, because it has to balance this
freedom for all and cannot provide too many liberties. Derrida states, It has
always been very difficult, and for essential reasons, to distinguish between
the goods and evils of democracy It has always been hard to distinguish
7 Note, the authors correlation of the words excess and deficient and good

and bad to correlate the example to Nancys idea of gaps, and these in no
mean reflect the nature of either group; not all the French were excessively
good nor the Algerians deficient or actually bad.

between the good of democratic freedom or liberty and the evil of

democratic freedom. They are hardly different.8 If democracy grants
liberties to everyone, the license granted to all can destroy society because
there will be little agreement on what is right between the rous and the
insiders. On the other hand, if democracy does not grant access liberty to
all it contradicts its original idea of access to all, so the line is fine if it even
really exists at all.
There is another pair that democracy must balance and that is freedom
and equality because that line can be drawn with both worth and number. It
has been mentioned above that individuals are very different from each
other in a multitude of ways; therefore, to equalize the ideas an entire
population would remove their freedom. If this was not the case, rous would
not really exist because there would be no challenge to the system;
opposition wouldnt exist or at a minimum they would be out of sight.
Everyone would have to think a certain way, and that prohibition of freedom
is not democracy. Too much freedom is also a problem, as illustrated before.
Equality among voices becomes unclear because there are too many ideas to
make possible in a real society. In the roots of Plato and Aristotle, the voice of
the people is illustrated by either number or worth. Votes or input is either
considered by number or worth. Derrida understands the struggle of
societies to use each system as he says, What is an indivisible and
Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2005): 21.
8

countable vote? So many difficult questions difficult and more open than
ever. A question of nomos and thus nemein, of distribution or of sharing.9
Essentially, he questions which is more important to share votes among a
population based on worthiness or distribute to each person. Although it
seems more just to give every person a vote, Derrida shows various
historical moments when vote by number could have actually destroyed
democracy had the election not been stopped and democracy was shattered
in that way. For example, Hitler was elected as a dictator through democratic
votes and thus the democracy of Germany destroyed itself. Like the balance
between liberty and license, freedom and equality are delicate and possibly
detrimental if not done correctly. In the first comparison, the very definition
of democracy is compromised if the government leans one way or another;
however, an imbalance of freedom and equality could destroy the structure
itself either through prohibition in equality or permission of free choices.
Because of all of these different factors, a true democracy has yet to
come. Man is still waiting on the constitution that was once brought up by
Aristotle and Plato because in reality it has not been achieved. Derrida states
humans have a preconceived notion of how democracy should be, Did we
not have some idea of democracy, we would never worry about its
indetermination. We would never seek to elucidate its meaning or, indeed

9 Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. (Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 2005): 30.

call for its advent.10 Essentially, because man has a basic understanding of
the idea, society seeks for the perfect form and worries it will not come. This
fear is due to studies of our current situation and the conclusion that the
status is fragile and unsatisfactory according to what it should be.11 It is
difficult to imagine what the perfect form looks like as of yet, but there exists
hope that it can be achieved one day.
This concept is similar to globalization because as Nancy says,
globalization is also weak. It is an agglomeration that invades and erodes
what used to be thought of as a globe.12 This agglomeration means that
globalization has the instability of trying to accumulate and concentrate
major elements under a singular umbrella term that really cannot cover the
whole topic without losing original meaning. It is like a sponge that soaks up
too much dirt it can no longer clean without spreading some of the other
element on the new surface. Democracy similarly tries to cover too much
which creates these difficult equilibriums. Both concepts also lack the
essence of a concept and attempt to unify gaps that simply cannot be
10 Ibid. 18.
11 Matthias Fritsch also comments on the dissatisfaction of the current state

of democracy due to secularization which has many similarities to Nancys

idea of globalization. In his work Derridas Democracy to Come, Fritsch
discusses the scrutiny of metaphysical influences on democracy and whether
its influence is as negative as Derrida implies.
Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Creation of the World or Globalization. Trans.
Francois Raffoul. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007): 33.
12

brought together. They are constructs that may attempt to have great effects
on politics and cultural intersections, but when examined closely can be their
own destruction without any intent to ever do so.

Bibliography
Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2005.) 19-41.
Fritsch, Matthias. "Derrida's democracy to come." Constellations 9, no. 4
(2002): 574-597.
McMahon, Laura. "The Justice of Images: Between Derrida and Nancy."
Modern & Contemporary France 19, no. 01 (2011): 1-16.

10

Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Creation of the World or Globalization. Trans. Francois

Raffoul. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007.) 33-55.