Democratic and socialist approaches - Essay Example

Democratic and socialist have different perspectives about the role of the state in terms of its relationship to the citizenry. Under which ideology does a strong central government play a more central role? Why? The State inherently plays a more decisive role in socialist forms of government than democratic organizations, primarily due to the need of redistribution of income or wealth but also because of the responsibility entrusted to it for building enterprise and industry for the betterment of society. Soviet, Eastern Block, and Nazi versions of State Socialism became historically notable for the development of a police state apparatus, which is often used to paint this form of government as statist and undemocratic by opponents. Yet, socialism works in Europe or India on the same principles of social justice and leads to a more egalitarian society, primarily because the State is entrusted with caring for the economic needs of citizens that are lost under extreme forms of capitalism. Thus, in the instances when socialism is used to implement needed services like public health care, education, or retirement pension programs, it is seen as beneficial because the State can arbitrage a more efficient pricing structure or lower costs by serving the public interest without the profit motive. Democracy, on the other hand, should inevitably lead to decentralization, because democratic ideals are more properly implemented in small-scale government institutions. The police state apparatus also arises in democracies such as the U.S. or U.K. in late capitalist development, calling into question the inherent efficiency for democracy to protect human rights or its ability to rise above propaganda and demagoguery even in the best examples of historical practice. However, democracy is related to Federalism in India, America, and other countries primarily because of the Greek ideal of the city state and the belief that when democracy is local, the individual vote has a higher worth. Because of this, the State can be seen to have less inherent power in a democratic system than under a socialist system, because of the need for the socialist system to centralize power in the name of the public good in order to accomplish its mandate. Democracy should inevitably lead to ever more local forms of government, and appears to work best when shareholders or stakeholders have some true value or worth accorded to their participation in governance. By this standard, the voting for a President every four years is merely a symbolic action, and in nation states with a huge population such as the United States, it is clear that the individual vote is often lost, viewed as inconsequential, or easily disposed with by politicians. However, on the local level, the importance of the vote is much more valuable for those who are actively participating in their own governance. For example, the Greek city state can be seen as a classic example of small scale governance where the individual voice is truly valued and participation can make a real impact. When power is decentralized to ever smaller and more local organizations of government, democracy works best, as it is under these situations when the people whose lives are actually affected by the decision-making process are actually given the opportunity to discuss and vote on the issues which concern them. This is the principle behind Federalism, and there is significant evidence that the Founding Fathers of America intended or hoped that the Federal government would be an extremely limited organization, lacking the power of income tax initially for example or restricted in its ability to raise debt or standing armies. What has become known as the modern democratic State is in fact little different from what is called an oligarchy or one-party dictatorship in other nations, i.e. the citizens must truly question whether their voices are truly heard and valued at the national level or whether the electoral system merely functions as a type of symbolic propaganda for the elite classes in society who control the real decision making behind the scenes. Thus, crony capitalism, corruption, and superpower democracy can combine in mass-media propaganda, police, and military control to become something very different from what the ideals of democracy intended for the State to become, and this should not be confused with decentralized democratic processes where the individual’s voice and vote actually stands for something by representing the active participation in local government organization and policy making. Yet, where the democratic ideals inherently encourage decentralization and smaller government, socialism necessitates a more centralized State power. The main reason for this is that the socialist ideals empower the State with the duty to provide for or create social justice in the economic realm which requires the redistribution of wealth. Usually, this transfer of wealth is done through taxation, but the larger mandate is to provide needed services to people on an egalitarian basis. Healthcare, education, and public utilities are often organized under socialist systems because the greater leverage of the collective power of the people distributed across a large sector of society can be deployed more efficiently and cost-effectively through socialist centralization of organization. The elimination of the profit motive as part of the public concern may make these efforts successful or also lead to their failure, depending on the cultural history, but in either instance the trend is also to an increased centralization of power in the State. These examples ignore the abuse of power by the State as being either inherent to socialism or democracy, as history suggests that this can be seen in either system. What is important is that democratic ideals inherently lead to the decentralization of power to operate efficiently and in accordance with fundamental principles, while socialist ideals inevitably require the centralization of power to accomplish the mandate of the public good. This interpretation is reinforced by Brian Martin (1984), who wrote: “Under state socialism the state has much more far-reaching powers than under capitalism. Factories, communications, farms, transport and publishing are owned and controlled by the state, as well as labour, police, education, military forces, trade and foreign relations. The state bureaucracies are large, powerful and pervasive, and this is why this form of social organisation is often called bureaucratic socialism.” (Martin, 1984) If state socialism requires political bureaucracies and the centralization of power to accomplish its mandate, then the State is inherently strengthened by this form of political organization. Similarly, if democratic ideals require decentralization of power or Federalism as part of a “checks and balances” measure that protects the human rights and civil liberties of individuals, then these ideals will inevitably lead to a less powerful State apparatus in application as part of the organization. If the civil liberties traditionally seen as inherent to democratic systems of government have become enshrined internationally in a basis of “human rights” and these accords also include a dedication to economic rights that are historically associated with socialism and Marxism, then it would appear that the mixed system of government becomes a requirement. This is seen in most countries around the world, including the U.S., U.K., E.U., Japan, China, etc. where socialist principles are implemented under various levels of democratic participation. In analyzing the Soviet Union in 1986, Noam Chomsky wrote, “It is small wonder that intellectuals find the transition from 'revolutionary Communism' to 'celebration of the West' such an easy one, replaying a script that has evolved from tragedy to farce over the past half century. In essence, all that has changed is the assessment of where power lies. Lenin’s dictum that ‘socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people,’ who must of course trust the benevolence of their leaders, expresses the perversion of 'socialism' to the needs of the State priests, and allows us to comprehend the rapid transition between positions that superficially seem diametric opposites, but in fact are quite close.” (Chomsky, 1986) Historically, this can be seen in the fact that socialist countries that become imbalanced in statist centralization yearn for freedom, human rights, and liberty, while democratic societies imbalanced in capitalist or oligarchic control inevitably seek to redress the injustices through socialist programs in political organization. Nevertheless, the tendency of democracy to work better in small organizations where the participation of the individual is meaningful can be seen as leading to decentralization and federalist structures in the ideal, whereas socialism becomes more efficient as State power is used to exercise the monopoly of public interest. Sources Cited: Chomsky, Noam (1986). The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. Our Generation, Spring/Summer, 1986. Retrieved from http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm Martin, Brian (1984). State socialism. Uprooting War, London: Freedom Press, 1984. Retrieved from http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/90uw/uw12.html Read More