Democracy Critical Analysis - Essay Example

Critical Analysis Introduction The article chosen for critical analysis is ‘Democracy’ by Gutmann, A, 1995. Critical Analysis In this article the author attempts to provide a broader understanding of democracy and its implications in the form of a democratic government. The author attempts to go beyond the common understanding of democracy as the rule of the majority or the contrasting version of the association of democracy with goodness for humanity. The author briefly evaluates the theories associated with what democracy and also includes an evaluation of the two paradoxes of democracy. The author then attempts to demonstrate that democracy is not paradoxical, but that it is disharmonious because in a democracy individual citizens have to make difficult political choices, with no guarantees that the choice is the correct solution. It is also disharmonious because the end results of public deliberations in any community on a controversial subject will differ, because of the autonomy that each individual enjoys in a democratic society. It is the perception of the author that disharmony in a democratic society will ebb only when there is mutual respect in the political choices made by the different individuals that make up the society. The author presents the understanding of the various arguments on democracy as Schumpeterian democracy, liberal democracy, participatory democracy, social democracy and deliberative democracy. Quoting from Schumpeter 1943 p. 269, the author presents the understanding of democracy from the perspective of Schumpeter as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for peoples vote”. The author argues against this understanding of democracy. While pointing out to the strength of this understanding of democracy through its recognition of the basis of democracy in the competition for the votes of the people, the author derides its lack of projecting any value for the process of competing for the vote of the people. The author uses the example of the apartheid regime in South Africa and the rule of the Communist dictator Stalin to reinforce this argument. The author finds further support from Robert Dahl, 1989, who argues that such an understanding of democracy does not differentiate from autocracy. The author proposes that populist democracy as an understanding of is founded on the basis of “people ruling themselves as free and equal beings rather than being ruled by an external power or by a self-elected minority among themselves.” In other words the stress in populist democracy is on the will of the people. To this end then there are built in constraints to ensure that decisions in the democratic society reflect popular will. An example of this is in the rule of law, as against the arbitrary decisions of public officials. When conflict arises in such a populist democracy, the popular can no longer be considered a democratic will, as it fails to demonstrate the will of the majority of the people, nor does it offer to maintain an environment conducive to maintaining the will of the majority over any length of time. According to the author liberal democracy does not look upon popular rule as the ultimate goal of democracy. Instead liberal democracy looking at a set of liberties offered to the members in a democratic society as more important than the expression of popular rule in the society. The author draws on support from John Rawls, 1971 and his A Theory of Justice to identify the set of ideals that constitute liberal democracy. These set of ideals is based on ideal of free and equal individuals enjoying the freedoms of thought, speech, press, association and religion. Liberal democracy thus offers scope for principles in its functioning through the use of means of moderating popular will through means like judicial review, checks and balances, and separation of powers, as can be seen in many of the democracies of the developed world. Yet liberal democracy is flawed with such a focus on the liberty of the individual, whereby individuals fail to exercise their franchise, as they see no value in it and look upon it as a loss of personal freedom by being forced to be a part of the political process. According to the author, participatory democracy in contrast places greater emphasis on the individual participating in the political processes than in liberties of the individual. Participatory thus holds out the possibility that individuals with a minimal interest in political processes in a democracy may develop interest, through the greater understanding of the political processes in a participatory democracy. Put in perspective of Rousseau people would flock to political assemblies. Yet, such a reality is a long drawn out with the process of invoking interest in the political processes in a democracy in such individuals taking considerable time. The author looks at social democracy as an extension of liberal democracy, wherein there is an extension of democracy into two realms that the proponents of liberal democracy consider private domains, namely the family and economic enterprises. Yet extending democracy into economic enterprises and family is complex. For example ordinary workers may not be competent to be a part of the strategic decision making processes in a business enterprise. Traditionally family issues have remained private, with the roles in the family and division of power and responsibility governed by tradition. Extension of democracy into these two realms is fraught with difficulties and complexities. The author perceives deliberative democracy tries to integrate the democratic basis of populist democracy with that of liberal democracy. In deliberative democracy popular rule is employed to express and foster the autonomy of individuals. In deliberative democracy open deliberative processes seek to bring about a better understanding of autonomy, which is then fostered by popular will. According to the author such a concept of democracy is faulty, for while democracy can foster popular will and prevent rule by a minority, it is hardly in consonance with autonomy and hence cannot foster autonomy in individuals. The author presents the paradoxes of democracy and dispels these paradoxes. The first paradox is the one perceived by Richard Wolheim in 1962. In this paradox a voter believing in a certain policy votes for it, but the majority vote against the policy and it does not go through. The individual voter is now placed on a situation of having to believe things that are contrary to earlier held beliefs. The author argues that this is not a paradox drawing support from the arguments of Hoderich, 1973 and Pennock 1974. The voter has voted on the basis of his beliefs, but accepts the majority decision that has been expressed through legitimate democratic process. There is no paradox involved. The author argues that there is no paradox in democracy, but rather it is disharmonious. Rational deliberations in a democratic society may ideally through up solutions for political solutions in theory, but moving into the practical realm there is a vast difference. In an environment of faulty dissemination of information and understanding instead of providing for knowledge of the correct solutions, such an environment gives room for political controversies. This leads to democracies being disharmonious, as the populations unable to find the right political choices. The greater the emphasis on autonomy the greater is the strife in decision making. Strife and acrimony in democracy ebbs only when there is respect given to others as not being selfish in their motives of political choices. This perspective of the author is valid, particularly so when we look at the largest democracy in the world in India. Political parties have realized the strength of the vote and created vote banks on the basis of parochial issues of religion, caste and region through the spread of faulty information and understanding of political issues. This has led to disharmony on political choices on issues of religion, caste and region, such that there is continuing disbelief among individuals on the ability of others to act in an unselfish or without narrow parochial views in political choices. Such disharmony in the Indian democracy will ebb only when the right information and understanding is spread to bring about a belief in the unselfishness of one another. Literary References Gutmann, A. 1995, ‘Democracy’ in Goodin, R. E. & Pettit, P. (eds) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, pp.411-421 Read More