The Athenian principles of democratic governance—citizen
participation in every aspect of policymaking, and holding the ultimate say in
matters that affect their life and well being (Manville & Ober, 2003),
appear to be the underlying ideals for most American citizens. Achieving these
in a system as large and complex as the United States, however, requires
constant reviews and the willingness to try new approaches, even if only
experimentally. This means trusting the
stability and endurance of the concepts associated with democracy—governance by
the people and for the people. While
many would assign such virtues as righteousness and integrity to these notions,
others prefer a less sentimental approach to delineating the qualities of a system
of governance, and examine the process from a pragmatic point of view (Ranney & Kendall, 1951). Inherent in impartial inquiry is the act of
challenging aspects of a system whose functionality is seen as incomplete,
irrelevant, or flawed; resolving ambiguity about what democracy entails, forces
one to examine critiques, and use them to gain insights for improvements (Ranney
& Kendall, 1951). In this paper,
I will outline two negative appraisals of the democratic process and evaluate
their potential for creating both increased discourse and positive outcomes, or
reducing options and thus hampering democratic processes.
Critiques
of Democracy
Manville and Ober (2003) have delineated the ideal approach to
democratic governance witnessed in ancient Athens, holding it as a model from
which to derive an array of viable permutations. The essential tenets were “participatory
structures,” ‘communal values,” and “practices of engagement” that provided an
environment within which the population, being a small concentration of
citizens of like mind and background, were informed about issues, deliberated
solutions, voted on their implementation, and were offered opportunities for
leadership and individual influence (p.569). In large democracies, many of these
circumstances are unachievable, notably the uniformity found in small
communities. The first critique of democracy
that appears valid, called “public choice theory,” asks whether it is possible
to aggregate disparate interests to the point where final decisions satisfy the
majority (Gilley, 2009). In the realm of public policy, unelected
officials make choices that may not be popular, and use a variety of tools to
implement them (Schneider &
Ingram, 1990). In a general vote
situation, where the public is asked to decide between a number of options,
what has been termed the “Condorcet winner” principle might come into play; this
means one selection might garner more votes, and thus be imposed, even if it
does not have the support of the majority of voters(Gilley, 2009). These examples appear to support the concept
that democracy is at best a futile exercise in promoting a general sense of
self-rule, but results in chaotic and unpredictable outcomes that might not
suit the majority.
A counter-argument to this pessimistic outlook offers the
permeable quality of democracy, in that it allows an infinite variety of
cultural, ethnic, and societal backgrounds to co-exist, promising them the
opportunity to create something of value to each one. The principle of diversity as strength suggests
that discourse is a central aspect of democracy. Chambers (2009) argued that the missing
ingredient today is the lack of such discourse; citizens do not gather, share
information, or decide upon courses of action on policy that benefits them. Hence, a shift in approaches might be called
for, encouraging representatives to institute public forums as a matter of
course, and use the resulting votes as the foundation for their policies, as
opposed to imposing ideologically based policies and risking potential negative
repercussions (Chambers, 2009). Essentially, then, the critique that diversity
is a weakness of democratic governance can be used as impetus for creating
changes that make multiplicity a foundation for deliberation and real citizen
participation in the policy making process.
A second argument against the efficiency of democracy is that of the
public’s general ignorance and the fact that their inability to grasp complex
international and national political realities makes them unsuited for
self-governance (Gilley, 2009). This perspective appears to favor rule by
those who have access to wealth and privilege (Gilley, 2009) and to have
existed even at the Constitution’s inception. Beard (1912) described the manner in which
many of the original authors attempted to institute a system that would protect
their wealth and status from the “danger of the leveling spirit” of the
“property-less masses.” Alexander Hamilton is quoted as describing the
majority as “the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right,” and
Madison, who feared “the tyranny of the majority,” as having foreseen with some
accuracy a future where wealth would be ever more concentrated and a growing
majority would have little( as cited
in Beard, 1912). The conflation of
poverty, ignorance, and incompetence appears to be a common theme, and
resolving these with societal restructuring dismissed.
Public education has been the preferred approach to resolving this
issue and its influence upon populist governance. Most democracies promote free basic education (Almond, Powell, Dalton, & Strom,
2010); in the United States, the federal government directs federal funding
and supports individual states and localities, who then determine standards and
outcomes they expect students to achieve(Department of Education, 2012). The recent budget cuts aimed at educational
programs puts in place a serious challenge to the principle of free education
as foundational to democracy, though, and raise the specter of a return to
power concentrated in the hands of a few.
Conclusion
Idealized democracy portrays the
citizen as the ultimate decision maker of his or her own fate, and well
equipped intellectually, educationally, and socially, to create a civil society
wherein the rights of individuals and the well-being of the community are absolutes (Manville & Ober, 2003).
Reality, though, consists of flawed
human beings, many of whom are ignorant and poor, whose choices are
unpredictable or so varied they cannot come to consensus, and who often do not
understand their own role in the proper functioning of democratic governance (Gilley, 2009). While many have used these negative attributes
to suggest that democracy cannot function in such an environment, other options
exist. Societies as evolving systems are
complex and diverse; as such, they offer numerous advantages, such as
multifaceted approaches to problem solving, rich traditions to draw upon to
create new paradigms, and the challenge of learning new forms of communication
and synergistic functioning. If
societies invest in quality educational systems, and offer programs that
provide citizens with universal standards and outcomes, they become well
equipped to function in a complex democracy. In essence, then, arguments that appear to
cast aspersions upon the viability of democracy can be used to highlight
solutions, and to shift from what might become a meritocratic system to one
that truly respects the individual’s right to self determination.
References
Almond, G. A., Powell, Jr., G.
B., Dalton, R. J., & Strom, K. (2010). Comparative
Politics Today: A World View (9th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Beard, C. (1912). Framing the
Constitution. In P. Woll (Ed.), American
Government: Reading and Cases (11th ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/beard-charles_framing-the-constitution-1912.html
Chambers, S. (2009, June).
Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass
Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323-350. doi: 10.1177/0090591709332336
Department of Education.
(2012). What We Do. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html
Gilley, B. (2009, January). Is
Democracy Possible? Journal of Democracy,
20(1), 113-127. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/195557168?accountid=14872
Manville, B., & Ober, J.
(2003). Beyond Empowerment: Building a Company of Citizens. In G. R. Hickman
(Ed.), Leading Organizations:
Perspectives for a New Era (Second ed., pp. 567-572). Los Angeles: Sage.
Ranney, A., & Kendall, W.
(1951). Democracy: Confusion and Agreement. Political
Research Quarterly, 4, 430-439.
doi: 10.1177/106591295100400303
Schneider, A., & Ingram,
H. (1990, May). Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. Journal of Politics, 52,
510-529. doi: 10.2307/2131904
No comments:
Post a Comment