If populism weakens the intermediation of intermediary bodies
Francesco Seghezzi addresses a knot that runs through many contemporary transformations: the relationship between work, representation and democracy
In the recent essay Disintermediation tires. Democrazia economica, populismo e crisi del collettivo, (Franco Angeli, pp. 226, euro 36) Francesco Seghezzi tackles a knot that runs through many contemporary transformations: the relationship between work, representation and the quality of democracy. The hypothesis is that the crisis of political democracy is difficult to understand without considering that of economic democracy. Alongside the theoretical dimension, Seghezzi proposes a comparative empirical analysis, based on five national cases (Austria, France, Italia, Poland and Spain), which shows how the relationship between populism and economic democracy takes on different configurations but for some traits converging.
Among the common elements emerges disintermediation, understood as a process of redefining relations between individuals, institutions and intermediate bodies, closely linked to the crisis of representation and the rise of populism. Among the book's merits is its ability to refocus on the meaning of this process. Disintermediation has long been read, especially by populist narratives, as a direct and unmediated relationship with power. This promise of access and autonomy has accompanied the development of the digital and, more generally, a significant part of the political discourse in recent years.
Seghezzi, in line with the most recent literature, argues that disintermediation does not imply the absence of mediation, but its transformation, which makes it less visible and less negotiable. The original point is the diagnosis of the underlying mechanism: disintermediation does not automatically broaden participation, but tends to weaken its quality because it erodes the collective structures through which individuals can organise interests, settle conflict and influence decision-making processes.
If Seghezzi's analysis is at a macro level, comparing national systems, the same interpretative perspective can also be extended to the organisational level and is particularly evident in digital platforms. Operators and customers seem to interact directly, but their relations are strongly conditioned by the rules embedded in the technological infrastructure, which orient and delimit the modes of interaction. This is the case, for instance, of the systems that decide the assignment of tasks or influence the visibility of users within the platform. In this context, participation tends to take the form of a contribution to the production of value within systems whose conditions are unilaterally defined by the platform.
The same pattern recurs with the spread of artificial intelligence. Here again, disintermediation is often presented as a form of direct involvement: systems that learn from user data, tools that invite direct interaction with models through prompts and incorporate feedback to improve responses. However, in the presence of concentrated infrastructures and non-negotiable rules, participation remains confined downstream: one contributes to the functioning of the system, without being able to intervene in its configuration.
