Democracy

Democracy as a Natural Order

“Democracy is any form of government in which the rules of society are decided by the people who will be bound by them .”* That was the original system of making decisions for society – all members took part… When the state arises 5,000 years ago, it takes the decision-making power away from society Democracy is a way of trying to restore the original norm to put the state under society’s control – * Catherine Kellogg, Democratic Theory, in: Janine Brodie and Sandra Rein,

Critical Concepts: An Introduction to Politics. 3d edition.

Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

The experience of Athens, 5th century BCE*:

Assembly democracy : citizens participated directly in initiating, deliberating, and passing of, the legislation. The Assembly, no less than 6,000 strong (out of 22,000 citizens), convened about every 10 days . Supreme power to decide on every issue of state policy Citizen juries : justice is responsibility of citizens (juries composed of 501-1001 citizens) Appointment of citizens to political office by lot Citizen-soldiers : every citizen had a duty to serve in the army Ostracism : a bad politician could be kicked out of office by the people

*See

Patrick Watson and Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy. Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys Ltd., 1988, p.12

The Classical Theory of Democracy

The triple meaning : Democracy as source of state authority – power of the people Democracy as the purpose of government good – the common Democracy as a method of choosing people political leaders – by the Abraham Lincoln: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” (1863) Also from Lincoln (1861): “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right or overthrow it”.

to dismember

But what happens in real life?

As a principle , it sounds attractive, but… If society is large, complex, divided, can it get organized to control the state – especially a large and powerful state?

Perhaps, only to a limited degree… Joseph Schumpeter, 1942: The classical theory is too broad and vague. It is much more practical to narrow the meaning of democracy to the method: “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement decisions for arriving at political in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote ”.*

*Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper, 1947, p.269

2 major dimensions of the democratic method:* contestation – free and fair competition between candidates participation – all adult citizens have the right to vote The use of this method requires the freedoms of: expression , to speak publicly and publish one’s views assembly , to gather for political purposes association , to form political organizations *Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971; Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991

Democracy’s Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20 th Century. NY: Freedom House, 2001 http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html

Democracy’s Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20 th Century. NY: Freedom House, 2001 http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html

Since 1900, the number of internationally recognized independent states has grown from 55 to 192 .

Electoral democracies – countries where governments are formed by democratic method – number 120 constitute of the 192 existing countries and 62.5% of the world’s population.

Key events which led to this expansion:

The defeat of fascism in World War 2 The fall of Western colonial empires The fall of Russian communism Union and the Soviet

Liberal democracy around the world, 2005 http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts200 6.pdf

Today’s Democratic Paradox

Democracy is accepted as the normal form of government more widely – and even normative in the world than ever before And yet, the real scope of democratic practices is very limited . The sea of democracy has never been wider .

But it is very shallow .

Inadequacies and failures method: of states organized by the democratic Declining ability to manage economies Growth of inequality The environmental crisis The rise of ethnic and religious conflicts Growing practice of mass violence races) (wars, terrorism, arms

Democratic deficit : global public opinion, 2005: http://markinor.co.za/news/who-runs-your-world

Liberal Democracy: Main Principles*

1. Individualism : Society is composed of individuals. The individual is sovereign. Individuals come first - groups second 2. Equality : All individuals have equal rights (see below) 3. Reason : People are capable of making rational decisions about anything, and can improve the conditions of their existence 4. Rights : Society must recognize certain individual claims as givens (the list of rights has been expanding: compare US Declaration of Independence, 1776, with UN documents: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, other UN rights declarations) 5. Society : Its interests are nothing but a sum of individual interests. 6. Protection of property and rights : The state exists to protect individual rights and private property 7. Freedom : individuals’ ability to act without interference by the state or other citizens *See Kellogg, Democratic Theory, pp.30-31

LD reflects the ambivalence about the role of the state (see the previous lecture): The state as the provider of public goods vs.

The state as a source of dangers to private interests LD seeks to make the state strong and capable by making it legitimate through the democratic method (democracy makes state power rightful and just , enables the state to rule) And – it seeks to limit state authority over society through separation of powers, rule of law, constitutionalism

Key principle of LD: distinction between - the private sphere (personal life of individuals, the family, civil society autonomous from the state, religion, the market economy) and - the public sphere (political society, the state, government policies) Activities of the state should be confined to the public sphere The public sphere should not be too large The private sphere should be autonomous from the state and protected from the state’s encroachments

Democracy, understood in the broad, classical sense, may easily lead to the violation of society’s autonomy . Majority rule always contains the danger of suppression of minorities – in the name of democracy . “Tyranny of the majority” – Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy may undermine liberty and even destroy Liberty is protected enhanced by democracy – but it must be from democracy

This ambivalence is a source of LD’s strength and durability The concern for individual rights The emphasis on the autonomy of society from the state The emphasis on pluralism are very important political values But the compromise to challenges : at the core of LD also makes it vulnerable Both from the Right and from the Left From the Right: LD fragments makes for disorder , it weakens society and the state, it the state. It is too much democracy From the Left: LD secures privileges of the elites – both private elites and state elites. This democracy is too limited

In the history of liberal democracy, liberalism precedes democracy When liberal principles become accepted in the practice of more and more Western states ( 18 th -19 th centuries ), the exercise of political rights and freedoms is limited Classical, laissez-faire liberalism limiting state power is concerned primarily about and protecting the private sphere – the market economy in the first place

In the 20 th century, the extension of political rights to all adults was accompanied by the expansion of the activities of the state The balance between the private and public spheres shifted in favour of the public sphere , as the liberal-democratic state, under the pressure of majorities, widens the scope of its activities, recognizes a wider range of rights , including labour’s right of collective bargaining Welfare-state liberalism emphasized the role of the state as provider of public goods Countertrend : In the last quarter of the 20 th century, conservative , or neoliberal , forces gained political dominance in the West (led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in UK, President Ronald Reagan in the US)

 The Trilateral Commission and the idea of “The Crisis of Democracy” (1975):   There is too much democracy in the West Democracy is becoming “ ungovernable ”

“Recent years in the Trilateral countries have seen the expansion of the demands on government from individuals and groups. The expansion takes the form of: ( I ) the involvement of an increasing proportion of the population in political activity; (2) the development of new groups and of new consciousness on the part of old groups, including youth, regional groups, and ethnic minorities; (3) the diversification of the political means and tactics groups use to secure their ends; which (4) an increasing expectation on the part of groups that government has the responsibility to meet their needs ; and (5) an escalation in what they conceive those needs to be.

” (Continued on next page)

“The result is an " overload " on government and the expansion of the role of government in the economy and society. During the 1960s governmental expenditures, as a proportion of GNP, increased significantly in all the principal Trilateral countries, except for Japan. This expansion of governmental activity was attributed not so much to the strength of government as to its weakness and the inability and unwillingness central political leaders to reject the demands of made upon them by numerically and functionally important groups in their society.

(Continued on the next page)

The impetus to respond to the demands which groups made on government is deeply rooted in both the attitudinal and structural features of a democratic society. The democratic idea that government should be responsive to the people creates the expectation that government should meet the needs and correct the evils affecting particular groups in society. Confronted with the structural imperative of competitive elections every few years , political leaders can hardly do anything else.”* *Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, Joji Watanuki. The Crisis of Democracy. Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press, 1975, pp.163-164

The “ conservative revolution ”, launched by Thatcher and Reagan, began to dismantle the welfare state in the name of individual freedom and market autonomy.

As electoral democracy marched forward, expanding territorially around the globe, the ability and willingness of the democratic states to satisfy social demands declined.

2 basic methods of social coordination in any society: 1.

Directed coordination , or authority (somebody plans the group, gives commands , others obey ) for 2.

Mutual adjustment , or exchange (everyone does his/her thing, nobody plans, nobody commands, coordination takes place through the web of interactions between gain seeking individuals or groups) Capitalism expands the realm of mutual adjustment – the rise of the market system , the power of self-interest But directed of coordination – exercise of authority , the power command – does not disappear. Quite the opposite: it becomes more effective No society can rely only on market-type interactions Many important social tasks the use of authority can only be performed through

Combining Authority and Exchange Authority structures under capitalism: The family The workplace (obey the boss, be disciplined, work hard) The state (whether democratic or authoritarian) Liberal democracy is a way of combining command with the power of the power of self-interest , putting a strong emphasis on self-interest. The state derives its authority to command from a market-type deal between the citizen and the politician : I’ll give you my vote and my taxes , if you work to deliver the public goods I need government”) (for example, “peace, order, good

 The Equality of the Unequal Is liberal democracy the perfect political form for capitalism?

Yes, but at the same time, democracy and capitalism are in conflict In the market economy, people are formally equal free agents, each after his/her own interests But in reality , they have vastly different amounts of social power The market system, in and by itself , does not reduce those differences. On the contrary, it increases inequalities – both within societies and existing between societies.

Democracy, on the other hand, is rooted in the idea of equality . Vigorous practice of democracy in society does lead to lessening of social inequalities.

Another contradiction: in a democracy , citizens work together to achieve common goals In a market economy , people compete , trying to gain advantage over each other – “survival of the fittest” (Herbert Spencer) Can the contradictions between: socioeconomic between inequality cooperation and and political equality , and competition – be kept under control ?

Average Pay of US CEOs and Workers*

1980-2000 (in 2000 US dollars) Average pay 1980 2000 CEO $1,306,120 $13,100,000 Production and non-supervisory worker $28,950 Ratio, CEO/worker pay 45 $28,579 458 Source: Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta and Susan Wefald, Raise the Floor, 2001 (Ms. Foundation for Women). http://www.inequality.org/ceopayeditfr.html

Distribution of wealth in the USA http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html

Who owns capital in America http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html

 Haves vs. have-nots in America: public opinion study by Pew Research:  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/h aves-have-nots

Percentage share of national income Country Brazil Russia US Canada Poorest 10% Poorest 20% 1.0

1.7

1.8

2.8

Germany 3.3

2.6

4.4

5.2

7.5

8.2

Richest 20% 63.0

53.7

46.4

39.3

38.5

Richest 10% 46.7

38.7

30.5

23.8

23.7

Human Development Report 2001, UN Development Program

Inequality on a global scale The gap in living standards between the richest and poorest nations: 1820: 3 to 1 1913: 11 to 1 1950: 35 to 1 2002: 70 to 1 See Jeremy Seabrook, The No-Nonsense Guide to Class, Caste and Hierarchies. Toronto: New Internationalist Publications, 2002, p.77

The world’s population: 3 classes Upper class : 11% (real income higher than the average income in Italy ) Middle class : 11% (real income between the average income in Italy and the poverty line, adjusted for purchasing power ) The poor : 78 % (real income below the poverty line) See Branko Milanovic, True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First Calculations Based on Household Surveys Alone.

Economic Journal

, Jan.2002

2.8 bln . people live on less than $2 a day The richest 1% of the world’s people receive as much income as the poorest 57% (UN Human Development Report 2002, Overview, p.2) World’s 3 richest people have assets greater than 48 poorest countries combined

UN Human Development Report 2002 (see link on my website): “Economically, politically and technologically, the world has never seemed more free – or more unjust ” (p.1) “Advancing human development requires governance that is democratic both in form and in substance ” Why democracy is key to development: 1/ Participating in decision-making is a fundamental human right 2/ Democracy famines, wars (governments are more circumspect, attentive to public needs) protects people from political and economic catastrophes – -Since 1995, 10% of population of North Korea died of famine -In 1958-61, 30 mln. died of famine in China -In India , there has not been a single famine since 1947, despite crop failures 3/”Democratic governance can trigger a virtuous cycle of development – as political freedom empowers people to press for policies that expand social and economic opportunities, and as open debates help communities shape their priorities ”

BUT: “The links between democracy and human development are not automatic: when a small elite dominates economic and political decisions , the link between democracy and equity can be broken” (p.4) At issue: WHO CONTROLS THE STATE? WHOSE INTERESTS DOES THE STATE SERVE? Can an egalitarian political system coexist long with massive and growing socioeconomic inequality ? Can concentration of economic power in the hands of a few be reconciled with political pluralism ?

How can these contradictions be resolved: 1.

At democracy’s expense:

--limit democracy by manipulating its workings --limit democracy by strengthening coercive powers state of the --mobilize the nation to unite, despite the inequalities – to defend itself against an external enemy, or to conquer other nations --foster racial and ethnic divisions , mobilize majorities against minorities --opt for full-fledged fascism

In favour of democracy:

--Widen the channels through which citizens can effectively participate in politics --Use new information political organizing technologies, network-type forms of --Extend democracy into the workplace ownership) (employee --Reduce the influence of big money on political systems - Increase the state’s ability to control economic elites --Create new forms of regulation of market economies both at the national and the global scale --Develop effective social policies