Thought Paper on Dahl Book - Essay Example

Two main themes stand out from Dahl’s analysis – his look at the ‘profound ignorance’ (p.7) of the Framers of America’s future, and thus the need to periodically amend it, and the fact that it has not been adopted by other democratic countries. Dahl begins with the basics, asking why we should uphold the Constitution, and stating that his aim ‘is not to propose changes in the American Constitution but to suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution’ (p.1). His book starts on the right note by immediately admitting the imperfection of American constitutional arrangements – at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, Rhode Island sent no delegates, while those from New Hampshire arrived weeks late.

Not only was this an irregular start, but Dahl rightly asks why Americans should still feel bound to a document signed by only 39 men, some of whom owned slaves. When Dahl notes that there had never since been a referendum on it, one wonders if perhaps there should have been. Dahl is not unduly harsh to the Framers of the Constitution, recognizing that they were a product of their times, and that ‘Judged from later, more democratic perspectives’, the document has many shortcomings (p. 15).

However, given this fact, Dahl is right that Americans should look upon it as the work of mortal men, and a practical and changing document, rather than a sacred text to be preserved. For example, with slavery, it was clear that the delegates from the southern states would never accept anything which didn’t allow slavery to continue, and so it was allowed for the sake of a strong federal government. Again, with the unequal representation in the Senate – a point which arises repeatedly in Dahl’s work as a weak point of the Constitution – the smaller states would never have accepted anything less than equal representation with the larger states.

There is a tendency to assume that, because the Constitution retains the support of most Americans, and because of the idealistic portrayal of its origins, its status as a basically good document need not be questioned. What is most striking about Dahl’s work is his comparison of the American Constitution with that of other countries with a strong democratic tradition, out of which comes one major point – if the American Constitution was such a wonderful document, surely it would have been adapted by other countries seeking a democratic model.

As Dahl himself writes, ‘Many Americans appear to believe that our constitution has been a model for the rest of the democratic world’, but of the 22 other democracies analyzed, America is unique (p.41). Some countries share some aspects of the US constitution, such as its federalism, or its strong judicial review mechanisms, but none has several key features in common. Especially interesting in this regard is the American presidential system, which allows for a uniquely powerful head of state, who, since the office is now filled by popular election, is like ‘a monarch and prime minister rolled into one’ (p.72). We must agree with the author that such a powerful position does not really seem appropriate in a modern democracy.

However, this is not the worst of the defects of the constitution as it now stands. More