Democracy in Practice

Helena Catt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134703463
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

bThis unique textbook provides students with a detailed look at many different aspects of democracy in practice: clearly describing and analysing all three existing models of democracy: * participatory democracy * referenda and initiatives * representative or liberal democracy. Using numerous real life examples from all over the world, this text explores how each is used in practice and provides discussion of the main problems with each model, answering the question: Why are there so many different forms of democratic practice?

1 What do we mean by democracy?

Across every continent democracy is desired but there is little agreement on exactly how to achieve it. Each country has its own set of procedures, each claiming to be democratic but based on a distinctive mix of beliefs about what is important for democracy, what is feasible and what is acceptable to the population. Looking at other groups, such as community organisations, workers’ co-operatives and pressure groups, shows an even wider range of democratic practice. What all groups have in common is a need to make decisions on certain matters that affect all members, and what democratic groups share is a desire to make these decisions in a way that allows every member to participate in the decision. Democracy is now widely seen as the best method to use for national government. However, this dominance is less than a century old. The growing acceptance of democracy came with changing views on what it entailed, new suggestions about the appropriate worth and treatment of people and evolving social structures. Many strands are important to the development of democratic theory. Ideas about individuals as equal autonomous beings and the proper role of the government fuelled debate about the best way to run a country and make decisions. Changing social patterns relating to the ownership of land and wealth, industrialisation and the weakening power of elites such as the church and hereditary aristocracy meant that new methods had to be found. Ever-growing populations and advances in communications added to the perceived need for changes in state structures. Within all aspects of democratic practice, theoretical and functional factors are interconnected. Most of this book examines the ways in which people have tried to practice democracy, but to do this it is important to first understand the ideas that led to the near universal acceptance of democracy as the ideal method of decision making.

Lincoln declared a commitment to ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ and so summed up what most people would recognise as democracy. In linguistic terms ‘democracy’ is derived from the greek demokratia that can be broken down into demos meaning the people and kratos meaning rule. Although the translation of democracy as ‘rule by the people’ implies decision making, viewing democracy primarily in this way covers only some of the meanings often assigned to the word. As part of the widespread desire for democracy it is often used as a blanket term of approval for life in the West in relation to both institutions and cultural norms. Democracy is also used to mean a set of rights or an entire way of organising the political and economic life of a state. Concentrating upon democracy as a procedure that can be used by members of a group to reach a collective decision provides a focus for the study of democratic practice. It is easier to consider the procedures that are specified for decision making than to look at the details of a particular decision. The concentration upon institutions rather than behaviour allows for comparison across a wide range of democratic groups. However, behaviour is not totally excluded as the way in which groups actually manage to use the set procedures is an important component of the assessment of the extent of power that the people gain under the different manifestations of democracy. The next section in this chapter looks at the main aspects of theoretical debate relating to democracy. Later sections introduce ideas about why there is diversity in putting democracy into practice, and outline the rest of the book.

The fact that a nation, or any other group, needs a procedure for making collective decisions highlights the problem that a nation is both a collection of the people who live in a geographical area and an entity in itself. The idea of ‘the people’ as an entity is stronger in ‘continental’ democratic theory, deriving primarily from Rousseau’s writings. In the Anglo-American tradition the entity is seen as an aggregation of individuals’ views while in continental thought the entity that is ‘the people’ has a will of its own. So the entity, as aggregate or unit, makes decisions concerning each individual within the collectivity. For example, the government of Sweden decides how the Swedish people will receive health care and in Switzerland all the people voted to revise legislation on sickness insurance. In each case a decision is made that concerns all the people who live in the country. However, because a nation contains a great number of diverse individuals there will be a range of views that must be taken into consideration when making decisions. Obviously some issues, such as abortion, are more controversial than others, such as house-building standards. Nevertheless, on any given issue there are likely to be different groups of people with conflicting ideas about the best solution. So the decision-making process must be able to deal with conflict but produce results that all will accept. If the people whose ideas were rejected do not accept the legitimacy of the final decision then they may not follow it and thus the structure of the state will be weakened. In reaching a decision some people will not get what they wanted, which again emphasises the group aspect of democracy. So democracy is at the centre of politics because it looks at ways to deal with power conflicts in society. Problems relating to the ways in which a group can make decisions that are accepted by all are discussed in Chapter 2.

Recognition of conflicting views about what the people need is not new but the idea that the people rather than an elite should decide what to do is. Democracy contrasts with rule by a particular group, for instance aristocracy where a privileged class rule, or gynocracy (rule by women), or gerontocracy (old men), or plutocracy (the wealthy), or stratocracy (the military). In the past a monarch or aristocracy or other elite had power over decisions and such an arrangement was seen as legitimate. For instance, Plato argued for intelligent guardians while King James of England and Scotland claimed his legitimacy came through God in the form of ‘the Divine Right of Kings’. In England, France and other feudal European countries, there were assemblies who advised the monarch, but they were made up of an elite based upon hereditary title or land or the church hierarchy. During the years when absolutist rule became the norm, in the seventeenth century, such assemblies mostly disappeared. In this respect the English parliament was an exception to the general trend. In the twentieth century there have been numerous examples of individuals as leaders of their country, based most often on hereditary title (for instance Emperor Hirohito of Japan pre-1945, King Saud of Saudi Arabia) or military strength (for instance General Franco in Spain, General Abacha in Nigeria). Only very recently has democracy replaced rule by one person or an elite as the norm for a country.

In the nineteenth century to be called a ‘democrat’ was not taken as a compliment, but in the late twentieth century ‘democracy’ is a desired label, seen as conferring respectability. Democracy was the rallying call of the Allies against dictatorship in the two World Wars. In 1945 the victors ensured that the defeated Axis powers adopted democratic institutions. More recently, the USA has given aid to countries in the former communist bloc to assist with democracy. East Germany received funds to help the merger with West Germany and money given to Russia in 1991 and 1992 was tied to the elections of those years. Ideas of democracy as a good idea slowly emerged from the mid-seventeenth century, gaining momentum in the American and French Revolutions (1776 and 1787 respectively). Many different strands of thought were important in the gradual change from elite to popular rule as the favoured situation. Reformation Protestantism provided egalitarian arguments and examples of resisting traditional hierarchies (Arblaster 1987:26). Lockean ideas about individual rights and the need for consent added another important element. Hence the importance of the American Revolution cry of ‘no taxation without representation’. Ideas of individual rights, autonomy and equality are central to theoretical arguments about democracy.

There are other methods of reaching decisions that affect a group of people that are used in certain situations. In the 1980s the use of the market was advocated by many political leaders in the West and whole areas of decision making were moved from the domain of democratic government to the workings of the market, most notably aspects of welfare provision such as education and health. Lottery or random selection is also favoured for certain types of decisions, in particular if there is no rational or acceptable way to choose between the options. Conscription to the US army during the Vietnam War is a good example of the lottery in use. In this case there was no evidence that particular young men should be chosen ahead of others and all those who wished to join up had done so. The armed forces did not need all young men so they randomly selected certain dates and all with that birthday were required to enlist. With no established criteria by which to choose individuals, leaving the selection to luck is less divisive than other forms of decision making. The market, random selection, dictatorship and elite rule are all practical methods for making decisions that affect a group and could be chosen instead of democracy.

Theoretical justifications of democracy

In most theoretical writings, democracy is not valued in itself but because it provides other desirable ends. Central to the arguments for democracy and its gradual acceptance are the basic ideas of equality and individual liberty and what these concepts entail. However, both of these central ideas can be interpreted in a variety of ways and the exact nuances that are stressed affect the type of democracy that is seen as justifiable. Another problem is that individual liberty can be restricted by the implementation of equality and can also hinder equality. The ways in which tensions between the key ideas of equality and liberty are dealt with are at the centre of arguments for different types of democratic procedures. Before looking at the problems inherent in trying to use democracy to achieve liberty and equality each concept will be considered individually.

Equality is most often taken to mean that all are the same in some important respect. At the most basic we share a common humanity. However, there are and have been other ideas about what it is that is shared: citizenship; the ability to decide what is best for oneself; a capacity for rational thought; an economic stake in the country; the ability to defend one’s country. The idea that all are equal is so commonplace now that few would pause to consider it, but in past centuries the belief in natural hierarchies was just as instinctive. Judaism and particularly the ideas in Protestantism whereby all are seen as equal before God was important in spreading the idea of equality as sameness. The radical group within the Parliamentarian Army known as the Levellers during the 1640s English Civil War argued for an equal say for all men because all are equal before God. The American Declaration of Independence (1776) follows the same line of argument, proclaiming that one self-evident truth is that ‘all men are created equal’. However, who exactly was included within the category of ‘men’ and should therefore be treated equally varied. The Levellers did not include women, children or live-in servants (Wootton 1992:75) and the Americans excluded women, children and slaves.

When all individuals are seen as equal it follows that no person is deemed to be any better or any worse than any other person. That is, all should be seen as the same as far as rights and treatment are concerned. Given this understanding of equality as treating people in the same way, two important ideas follow for the democratic making of decisions. First, if each person’s view deserves equal respect and is seen as being as valid as the next, then no person should be deciding for another. Therefore, all need a say in decisions, so they need collective selfgovernment. Second, if people should be treated in the same way then the system must be impartial in its operation. In terms of democracy this means that all must have the same chance to participate in the process. The need for self-government and equal access are seen as vital components of democracy by those who aim at achieving political equality.

In each age, the right to equal treatment has been applied to those who are deemed to be of equal status rather than to all people. In other words people who possess the key aspect(s) deemed to be shared are allowed into the democratic decision-making club. In Athens the vital characteristics were based on sex, land, age and Athenian ancestry; in nineteenth-century Britain it was sex, age and property; in present-day USA it is age and citizenship. Arguments for an extended franchise have largely been based on claims to equal rights because there is no relevant difference between those who can vote and those who think they should be allowed to. So Wollstencroft admonished women to see themselves as human beings rather than women and all that it implied (Lively and Lively 1994:132), and in the Putney Debates one of the Levellers argued that as God gave all men reason they should all have a say in government, whether they were poor or rich (ibid.: 123). As Beetham says, the fight for an equal suffrage was to prove that all had an ability to be responsible and make decisions concerning one’s life and to share the responsibility of decisions for the whole community. These capabilities were found equally in all adults and did not relate to class or gender or income or ethnicity (Beetham 1993b:59). So it is equal ability to participate in self-governance that is important.

Equalising the franchise assumes that an equal right to take part, in this case vote, is sufficient to give impartial treatment. But some theorists on the Left ask if the crucial aspect is that all are treated in the same way or that all have an equal capacity to take part? Equal ability to participate can be interpreted as giving everyone a vote or as ensuring that inequalities in social or economic life do not affect the ability to be equal in political life. Wollstoncraft and J.S.Mill were early advocates of the need for equality between men and women in the economic and social as well as political spheres for democracy to function (Held 1987:99). Writers on the Left argue that people who feel inferior in their income and job are not able to participate equally in the political arena with those who have more money or status (Arblaster 1987:79; Mendus 1992:209). In Held’s advocacy of autonomy he stresses the need for equal conditions that he explains as meaning an equal access to the minimum resources needed to participate (1987:293). Feminists argue that gender equality does not exist in modern society and therefore this is a challenge to the perception that democracy exists. Some take this argument to mean that democracy is not possible while others argue that the situation can change to recognise differences and so save democracy (Mendus 1992:213–15). If differences rather than sameness are to be recognised then unequal treatment is called for to produce a situation of equal influence. For example, the provision of ‘readers’ so that the illiterate can ‘read’ campaign literature and the ballot paper; or the provision of childcare facilities so that parents can attend meetings.

Democratic decision making as a means of obtaining self-governance to fulfil the ideal that no person should be deciding for another is an important strand of argument in justifications for democracy. Dunn describes the enduring idea of democracy as each person being able to speak for themselves and taking a part in collective decisions (1992:265). When all have a say in decisions this means that each person’s views will be heard and respected. Here again there is a difference between the Anglo-American and continental traditions with the latter placing greater emphasis on self-government, because of its belief in the group as an entity. Rousseau saw the people as sovereign and the social contract as creating the opportunity for self-government (Held 1987:74–75). So the people together make decisions that the government enacts as their agent.

The other strand to the argument of self-government is that all decisions should be made only after each person has had the opportunity to express their view. Only if the decision is made by all is it legitimate. In other words, why should I obey a new law when I had no part in the process that led to that decision? Of course, if I chose not to take part but had the opportunity to do so then I should accept the legitimacy of the decision. Again the ability to take part in the democratic process is an important step in attaining equality. So the arguments relating to access and the need to alleviate them are relevant to equality as self-government too. Even if all have the same access to the democratic procedures there are other conditions that need to be met, such as the availability of information. Therefore equal rights to disseminate and receive information on conflicting views are seen as a vital part of democracy. A free media plus freedom of information, association and belief are all necessary for equal participation and self-governance. The extent to which the people are informed on issues and their ability to understand them is a common theme in discussion of the success of democracy in practice.

Aristotle and Plato both listed equality as central to the Athenian idea of democracy (Held 1987: 15, 29). Modern writers agree on the importance of equality: Fishkin lists it as one of three prerequisites (1991: ch. 4); Dahl says that democracy presupposes equality (1989: ch. 22). But there is a problem of which comes first. Is democracy needed to ensure that people who are equal are treated in the same way or does the state need to ensure that people are equal in their ability to make use of democracy? While an assumption of equality between individuals within the group implies the need for democratic decision making for some writers (on the Left) the fact that the individuals are not equally able to participate necessitates intervention to create equality. Despite the centrality of equality in arguments for democracy, equality is not universally accepted as a desirable aim. Even for those who accept arguments for equality, some give a higher priority to individual liberty.

In the classic views on what was good and bad about the three types of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) the ‘good’ aspect of democracy is liberty. Freedom, the oft-used synonym for liberty, is seen by many as central to, if not a defining part of, democracy. Farrar says that this was what marked out citizens from others in Athens (1992:18). For J.S.Mill, democracy was the only way to ensure that individual liberties were not infringed in an arbitrary manner (Held 1987:85). The traditional liberal ideas of individual freedom were important in the resurgence of interest in democracy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In resisting hierarchy and insisting on individual autonomy, writers such as Locke paved the way for later arguments for democracy, although he was not an advocate. More recent writers in the New Right tradition, such as Hayek and Nozick, place emphasis totally on liberty and see the only role of the state as being to safeguard the institutions that regulate the interaction of autonomous individuals (ibid.: 245).

Liberty has just as many connotations as equality and they, again, affect expectations of democracy. Miller (1991:2–4) distinguishes three sets of ideas about liberty: republican, liberal and idealist. In the republican view, a person is free if they are part of a free (that is self-governing) political community. For liberals, individuals who can do as they want without facing constraint are free. To an idealist, autonomy is important and so are ‘authentic’ desires, so that a person is free if they follow their real wants. Another, often discussed, distinction is between negative and positive liberty. In the former the individual is free from external constraints: the state cannot stop me eating chocolate. This idea fits with Miller’s liberal group of ideas on freedom. Positive liberty is most commonly interpreted as meaning that individuals have the capacity to do as they want: I have money and there is a chocolate shop nearby and open. Miller adds to this interpretation of positive liberty the ideas of rational self-direction and control of the social environment, in other words the republican and idealist ideas on liberty (ibid.: 10). Running through the different interpretations of liberty is the idea of an individual deciding how to live and being able to do so without hindrance from others.

A series of individuals living life as they wish is the central image encapsulated in modern ideas of liberty, but when talking of democracy we are interested in group activity. It is the ways in which the freedom of the individual interacts with the existence of a collective group that tie liberty to democracy. One aspect of liberty common to the different interpretations is that individuals have free choice and should decide what is best for themselves. Therefore, democracy as self-rule is again stressed. The other important aspect of liberty as it relates to democracy is the need to be free from constraint, including obstacles imposed by the government. So liberty focuses attention upon the process of collective decision making and the issues where collective decisions should be made: the institutions and scope of the state. Despite being about the individual, liberty is concerned with democracy primarily because of ideas about the appropriate role of the state.

Each person is the best judge of what they want, so, as was the case with equality, self-determination is important in justifications of democracy based on a desire for individual liberty. But self-rule does not mean that each person does as they want because that does not imply any type of rule and does not take account of the social context. Rather, within a group, each person should be part of the government process that sets out rules for the group. It is the decision-making process rather than the outcome which is of interest, so tha...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of Tables
• Introduction
• 1 What do we mean by democracy?
• 2 How can a group make collective decisions?
• 3 Participatory democracy
• 4 Initiatives and referendums
• 5 Representation
• 6 Elected bodies
• 7 Assessing the practice of democracy
• 8 What future for democracy?
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Internet sources