Democracy and democratization

by bowles4455 | November 13, 2011 · 6:15 pm

Democracy and democratization, Chapter 1, Sample Exam Q1

“A system is more democratic if people can vote more often on issues which concern them. That is why democracy should make frequent use of referendums.” Discuss.

The statement “A system is more democratic if people can vote more often on issues that concern them. That is why democracy should make frequent use of referendums” is clearly based on a participatory conception of democracy. Democracy has however been conceived in alternate ways- as a system of competition, or of balances- and proponents of such approaches would not accept the link between the frequency people are able to vote on issues and a system’s democratic credentials. Critisisms they may level at such a claim include the fact that arguably the general public does not possess the necessary capabilities and/or motivation to make informed political decisions, and that frequent referendums tip democratic balances too far in favour of majoritarian rule. In fact, even taking a participatory approach to democracy, it is not clear that referendums are necessarily the most satisfactory means of maximizing participation. Voting is only one form of political participation, and the use of refendums may also be critisised for their tendancy to produce conservative, status-quo-biased decisions, and for the power they grant to the “agenda-setter”.

There are, broadly speaking, three alternate ways in which democracy has been conceived. The first- democracy as participation- holds that democracy is a system which allows citizens to partipate in the act of government. The second- democracy as competition- views democracy as a system which allows free competition for the right to govern. And the third- democracy as balance- sees democracy as a system designed to balance the potentially conflicting criterion of citizen participation, a strong capable government, and the protection of fundamental rights for all individuals. To argue that a system is “more democratic” the more often people are able to vote on issues is clearly to take a participatory approach to democracy. The claim would however appear incompatible with alternative conceptions of democracy.

For “democracy as competition” proponents, of whom Schumpeter is perhaps the most notable, democracy is a system which allows political leaders and parties to compete freely for the right to govern, granted on the basis of popular vote in periodic elections. The key difference between such an approach and a participatory perspective is that whilst the latter endorses the participation of citizens in the actual governing process of their polity, the former limits participation to choosing who should govern. This approach is based on the view that, in fact, the average citizen lacks the capabilities and/or motivation to actively participate in the governing process.  Therefore, what is preferable is that the process of governing is left to political elites, with electoral compettion allowing citizens to discipline them- the ruling elite must thus strive to govern in the “public interest” or risk not being re-elected. For Schumpeter and others then, a system is “more democratic” the freer that electoral competition is (i.e. the less constaints are placed on political groups assembling and presenting themselves as valid alternatives to the present ruling elite), not the more often referendums are held. Letting the people govern would be fine if they were capable of, and motivated to, make informed decisions, but, Schumpeter argued, this is not the case. As the weight of any one citizen’s vote is very little in a modern democracy, individuals see very little point in going to the necessary lengths to gain the skills and knowledge required to make informed decisions on what are often extremely complex political issues. Instead, it is argued, those skilled in making those decisions should be granted the freedom to do so, whilst the electorate is able to discipline them through periodic elections.

The conception of democracy as balance is best epitomised in the design of the US political system, which has changed little since its creation over 200 years ago. The design is one of a complex system of checks and balances, based on the belief that it is necessary to strike a balance between the rights of citizens to participate in the political process, the need for a strong and capable ruling elite, and the existence of fundamental rights which must be safeguarded from any potential erosion. The system is therefore one which limits power, so that neither the majority, political elites, or guardians of constitutional rights are able to exercise absolute authority. In contrast to such a system, one which made frequent use of referendums (assumed here to be questions posing a dichotomy of choices to the demos and operating on a simple majoritarian formula) would seem to tip the balance in favour of majoritarian rule, weakening the democratic role of both elite competition and constitutionally guarded rights. This would be viewed as undesirable for proponents of “democracy as balance” for two potential reasons. Firstly, there would be an echo of the Schumpeterian argument on the need for qualified elites, rather than the unqualified, unmotivated majority, to be able to exercise power. And secondly, there is the potential threat to fundamental rights and institutions posed by unrestrained majority rule- if a majority deemed these rights/institutions no longer desirable, they may be able to vote to remove them. Whilst this may appear democratic to the majority, for the minority it would represent a “tyranny of the majority”. This is a particular danger when the demos is divided into relatively cemented cross-issue majority/minority blocks, notably in multi-ethnic societies in which ethnicity is a salient issue. If democracy is perceived as balance then, rather than being “more democratic”, frequent referendums may in fact represent a threat to democracy.

Even if a participatory approach to democracy is adopted, it is not obvious that referendums represent the best means of maximizing participation. As Dahl has noted, the ideal of democracy originated in Ancient Greece as a system which allowed citizens to directly participate in the govering of the polity- with citizens attending assemblies in order to debate and make decisions, and also serving time in public office. Whilst that was possible in the relatively small city-states of Ancient Greece, in the vast society of the modern state such direct participation would appear an impossibility. Referendums would seem to be a convenient means of maximizing participation in modern democracies. On the plus side, this frequent participation may help foster a sense of civic community, democratic legitimacy, and to stimulate interest in the political process so that votes are placed on a more informed basis. On the negative side, observation of referendum results has shown that they tend to produce conservative decisions, favouring the status-quo over change, and in any referendum, the agenda-setter, in determing what question is (or isn’t) asked and how it is framed, wields a great degree of power. More fundamentally, voting is only one element of political participation, and there may in fact be other ways of extending participation which are preferable to the use of referendums. For example the extention of decentralised forms of government could allow more direct, multi-dimensional participation, and thus might be considered “more democratic” than merely allowing people to vote frequently in state referendums.

In summary then, even accepting that democracy means participation, the assumption that referendums are the appropriate means of maximizing participation is problematic. Couple this with the incompatibility of frequent referndums with the two alternative approaches to democracy- democracy as competition or as balance- and it suggests that claims that a system is “more democratic” if it allows people to vote in frequent referendums should be treated with suspicion.