Elon Musk is Pushing Western Democracy to Breaking Point: The Revival of Ancient Anti-Democratic Ideas

Introduction

The extraordinary influence of Elon Musk in Donald Trump’s second-term administration represents a fundamental challenge to democratic governance that draws from anti-democratic philosophies as old as Plato himself.

Operating with unprecedented power but limited accountability, Musk has rapidly consolidated control over vast swaths of the federal government, dismantling institutions and sidelining career officials at a pace that has alarmed constitutional scholars and democracy advocates alike.

This partnership between the world’s richest man and a president with authoritarian tendencies raises profound questions about the future of Western democracy.

Plato’s Critique Reborn

Ancient Arguments Against Democracy in Modern Guise

The rhetoric and actions of Trump and Musk echo critiques of democracy first articulated by Plato over 2,000 years ago.

In “The Republic,” Plato categorized governments into five regimes: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.

He viewed democracy as inherently flawed because ordinary citizens lacked the wisdom to govern effectively, arguing that ruling is a skill best left to experts.

This ancient critique has found new expression in Musk’s public statements about governance.

During a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Musk declared: “If the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy”.

This statement fundamentally misrepresents democratic principles, conflating democracy with the unimpeded implementation of a single leader’s directives.

Plato’s argument rested on the belief that political tasks, like selecting officers or participating in assemblies, require specialized training and expertise—just as farming or house-building do.

Similarly, Musk’s approach to government presumes that his business expertise qualifies him to reshape federal institutions despite having no electoral mandate or public service experience.

From Democracy to Tyranny

The Platonic Warning

Central to Plato’s critique was his belief that democracy eventually degenerates into tyranny when demagogues exploit popular discontent. In Plato’s framework, “from the conflicts arising out of such tensions, the poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, and democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it.

The populism of the democratic government leads to mob rule, fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit to take power”.

This warning feels ominously relevant as Musk, operating through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented sweeping changes to the federal bureaucracy with minimal oversight, prompting accusations of a “hostile takeover” of democratic institutions.

The “Rich Should Rule” Philosophy

Wealth as a Proxy for Wisdom

A core assumption underlying the Trump-Musk approach to governance is that wealth indicates fitness to rule. This idea has deep historical roots but has been revitalized under the current administration.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign personified this view, with his business acumen presented as his primary qualification for office.

As Trump proclaimed about his wealth, “That’s a broken system” while simultaneously offering no reforms to campaign finance—only the implication that his personal fortune made him independent and therefore suitable to lead.

Musk extends this philosophy further. As head of DOGE and designated a “special government employee,” he wields extraordinary influence over government operations despite maintaining leadership of his private companies, which hold billions in government contracts.

This arrangement creates glaring conflicts of interest while reinforcing the notion that extreme wealth somehow confers political legitimacy.

The Anti-Elite Elite

The irony of this approach is that while claiming to fight against “elites,” Musk and Trump represent an “anti-elite elite”—wealthy and powerful individuals who use populist rhetoric to advance policies that serve their interests.

As detailed in an analysis from the University of Montpellier, “The stated aim of this anti-elite elite ‘populism’ is no longer to reduce the size of the State, but to deconstruct the State in favor of a potentially arbitrary presidential power”.

This strategy allows Musk to present himself as a champion of democracy while actively undermining democratic institutions and norms.

When Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described DOGE as “an unelected shadow government conducting a hostile takeover,” Musk responded on his social media platform: “Hysterical reactions like this is how you know that DOGE is doing work that really matters”.

The Delusion of Heroic Leadership

The Fatal Attraction of the “Magic Leader”

The Trump-Musk partnership embodies what management experts call the “Magic Delusion”—the belief that a leader’s personal charisma alone can drive transformational change.

This delusion leads leaders to “devote too little time and attention to the part played by others—and to the less magical and more instrumental parts of leading a change effort, like budgets, roles and key performance indicators”.

Both Trump and Musk present themselves as heroic figures capable of single-handedly fixing complex systems through force of personality.

This approach aligns with what theorists of heroic leadership identify as the dangerous allure of charismatic authority that can undermine democratic processes.

The Drama Delusion

Closely related to the Magic Delusion is the “Drama Delusion”—the belief that change is “inherently fast, exciting, action-packed and risky”.

This explains the breakneck speed with which Musk’s DOGE team has implemented sweeping changes across the federal government, often with little consideration for long-term consequences.

In just two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s team “brought the work of the US’s main foreign aid agency to a halt, flagged millions of government employees for redundancy, gained access to classified material and sensitive details about millions of Americans, and taken control of the payment system that manages the flow of trillions of dollars of government spending”.

This dramatic approach to governance prioritizes speed and disruption over deliberation and institutional knowledge.

Global Impact

Musk’s Cross-Border Anti-Democratic Influence

Musk’s challenge to democratic norms extends well beyond American borders. According to NBC News, “Billionaire tech executive Elon Musk has encouraged right-wing political movements, policies and administrations in at least 18 countries in a global push to slash immigration and curtail regulation of business”.

This international pattern includes supporting right-wing street demonstrations in Brazil and Ireland, welcoming conservative governments in New Zealand, and expressing agreement with nationalist politicians in the Netherlands.

Musk’s social media platform X has also complied with censorship requests from right-wing leaders in India and Turkey.

Political scientists observe that Musk is helping grow anti-democratic movements worldwide by “trading ideas, making personal connections and building a shared ideological framework”.

As Manuela Caiani, a professor who studies international far-right movements, notes: “It is very dangerous that a nonpolitical agent now speaks with a sort of political legitimacy. He’s changing the paradigm of politics”.

The European Context

In Europe, Musk’s involvement has particular significance. Under the guise of defending free speech, he has amplified far-right European politicians and movements in ways that parallel the foreign interference concerns that have been raised about platforms like TikTok.

As Raluca Csernatoni, a fellow at Carnegie Europe, observes: “Musk frames his amplifying of European populist movements as a heroic stand for free speech.

Yet, a billionaire with a global platform has unimaginable reach and his primary political target is Europe, not Russia or China.

This begs the question: Is he on an all-out campaign to undermine EU regulation by subverting the EU’s political balance?”.

Project 2025 and Democratic Institutions

A Blueprint for Dismantling Democracy

The broader context for understanding Musk’s role is Project 2025, a comprehensive 1,000-page agenda created by the Heritage Foundation for the Trump presidency.

This plan includes “criminalizing voters” through a so-called “Election Crimes Branch,” “installing partisan loyalists” throughout government, and “dramatically increasing the President’s power to act without Congressional oversight”.

The Trump administration implemented nearly two-thirds of the extreme policies the Heritage Foundation laid out during his first term, suggesting the current Project 2025 agenda should be taken seriously as a roadmap.

Central to this agenda is the reshaping of the administrative state by “imposing loyalty to Project 2025 on the administrative executives of each of Washington’s ministerial departments”.

Schedule F and the Threat to Civil Service

A key component of Project 2025 is Trump’s revival of Schedule F, an executive order that “could allow Trump to fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with MAGA cronies”.

While this move is presented as enhancing democratic accountability, constitutional scholars warn it represents a serious threat to democracy by concentrating power in the executive branch.

In the text of the Schedule F order, Trump justifies this power grab as a democratic reform, asserting that because the president and vice president are the only executive branch members “elected and directly accountable to the people,” they must have greater control over civil servants “to restore accountability”.

This rhetorical sleight of hand—claiming to defend democracy while dismantling its institutions—is a common tactic of modern anti-democratic movements.

The East India Company Parallel

Corporate Colonization of Government

Harvard’s Ash Center draws a disturbing historical parallel between Musk’s current role and the British East India Company, which began as a merchant shipping firm but gradually acquired quasi-governmental powers, ultimately ruling with “an iron fist over British colonies in Asia”.

“What took centuries in the colonial era is now unfolding at lightning speed in mere days through digital means,” the analysis warns.

Through DOGE, Musk has gained unprecedented access to sensitive government systems and the ability to restructure agencies, positioning him to “extract unprecedented financial and strategic benefits for both himself and his companies”.

This corporate colonization of government functions represents a fundamental shift in democratic governance—from public accountability to private control.

As Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, observed: “I’ve never ever seen anything like this, never in the history of the country… You can’t just not spend money appropriated by Congress”.

Conclusion

Democracy at the Breaking Point

The partnership between Musk and Trump represents a culmination of anti-democratic ideas as old as Plato but weaponized through modern technology, wealth, and media power.

By claiming to defend democracy while systematically undermining its institutions, they employ the rhetorical trick that characterizes modern anti-democratic movements.

As Trump and Musk continue to test democratic norms and institutions, the question becomes whether these institutions can withstand such an unprecedented challenge.

The belief that extreme wealth confers political wisdom, combined with the delusion of heroic leadership, has created a dangerous experiment in governance that threatens to push Western democracy to its breaking point.

The coming months will reveal whether constitutional checks and balances can effectively constrain this concentration of power or whether we are witnessing, as some fear, the dismantling of American democracy from within.

As advocacy groups warn, “We can’t stand by in silence if our democracy is dismantled”. The stakes could not be higher for the future of democratic governance not just in America, but worldwide.