The Concept of Democracy - Case Study Example

Majoritarian vs. Consensus Democracy The concept of democracy has been in our collective conscience since the first s were established in ancient Greece along democratic principles. However, the debate over the form of democracy which could offer us the best course of government as well as the way a democracy is established, governed and should be implemented is still heavily debated. The debate will often come to a passé between Majoritarian and Consensus democracies and it will be up to the individual political analyst to select on which is nearer to his/her heart. Between the two, I consider the Majoritarian model to be most applicable and closer in theoretical intent to democracy than the Consensus model but I would be neglecting my prime duties if I do not say that the Consensus model is more applicable in the real world and it the system to which I would give my vote if there was ever an election between the two theories. The first thing to be noted about democracy, as it is presented by Dahl (1956) is that it is “a state of affairs” (Pg, 50). It is not considered primarily a system of government or even a way of life since democracy has several prerequisites in terms of the level of civilization which a particular group of people must have before they can implement democracy. Perhaps that is why history records an age of kings before the time of the elected philosopher kings was recommended by social scientists. A certain level of sophistication in terms of culture and the way of life is an essential requirement for the establishment of democracy. In fact, this level of social sophistication is so important that it has been suggested that “The first and crucial variables to which political scientists must direct their attention are social and not constitutional” (Dahl 1956, Pg. 31). The problem comes into play when we notice that the demands of a truly democratic system can only be met by only a few countries. Very few cultures can lay a rightful claim to a Majoritarian model since the prerequisites are so high. On the same page, Dahl makes the observation that: “To say that perfect attainment of political equality and popular sovereignty is, by definition of terms, consistent only with the majority principle is not to enunciate a wholly useless proposition, but neither is it very helpful.” (Dahl 1956, Pg. 31) The Majoritarian model depends on several things which must be present in a system before such a democracy can be established. The first requirement is a mass participation in politics by people who know how democracy functions and are politically well-informed. Of course this would be a representation of an ideal world if everyone was more interested in the way government functions and was perfectly knowledgeable about the democratic system as well as its intricate nuances. However, it would be plain to even a casual observer that in the present times, most of the people are not interested enough in politics even to be bothered about voting. The model as put forward by Dahl (1956) would also require people to be active participants in the decision making process rather than passive observers. It would indeed be a rare situation where Majoritarian democracy could be applied in principle and since we do not live in an ideal world, On the surface, it would appear that the Consensus model of democracy becomes infinitely more attractive as it is put forward by Lijphart in the books titled Democracies (1984) and Patterns of Democracy (1999) and a deeper examination of the same system is certainly warranted. In terms of applicability, Consensus democracy is a concept which is useful for societies which have a high level of segmentation. Instead of concentrating and placing complete power in the hands of one party like the Majoritarian system, this system seeks to provide some level of representation and governmental power sharing to all parties in the political spectrum that manage to secure votes for themselves. Since the majority of western and first world countries have been shaped in terms of minorities by the influence of immigration, it is good to see several countries that have many segments of minorities and have chosen to go for a Consensus democracy (Lijphart, 1999). Lijphart’s (1999) book presents the Consensus democracy system in a very positive manner and he comes across as a true believer in that system since he considers it less harsh and unfair in comparison to the Majoritarian system. That is not to say that he considers the Consensus system to be harsh, but in comparison to the Majoritarian system, he considers the Consensus system as a benevolent mechanism. His basic premise is that since democracy is always created by the people and not by the majority of the people, the Consensus system is superior because it allows nearly every group and subdivision in an electorate or the country to take a active part in the government. The Consensus democracy does not represent the largest minority or the small group with a large number of voters; in fact, it produces a finer democratic system by representing as many minorities and groups as is possible. Lijphart (1984) analyses the Consensus versus Majoritarian models of democracy by using the examples of various countries for the benefit of the reader. He additionally points out eight different indicators to analyze the various models of democracy; Lijphart considers Consensus democracy to come with two distinct dimensions. The first dimension of this system is the relationship between the executive and the legislative arms of the government which is measured by the stability of the government once it comes into power. It also measures the government’s ability to handle issues which come up given that it does not have the ability to deal with problems in a clear cut manner as in a Majoritarian system is expected to. The second aspect of Consensus versus Majoritarian models of democracy measures the ability of the systems to collect taxes (which is the basic source of income for the government) and the constitutional flexibility inherent within the system. On both these counts, the conventional wisdom has been that a single party which is in the majority will be more efficient since they will not have to go through the process of Consensus building before they enact new laws or (more importantly) raise taxes. This might make the Majoritarian system come across as an autocratic style of government, but conventional wisdom says that this style would involve less red tape and allow the government to do more. Lijphart (1984) goes on to defy the conventional wisdom which states that while the Consensus model of democracy is better at representing democracies the Majoritarian model is better at getting things done. The conclusion drawn in the book is that the Consensus model is superior because it is both efficient and because it is able to give minorities a voice in the government which the Majoritarian system does not. As compared to the Majoritarian system, the Consensus system is no less of a competent system of government since the economic indicators and revenue streams are not adversely affected. There is more or less a parity between the two systems since they are equally proficient at handling day to day government business. Additionally, Lijphart (1984) points us towards the truer version of democracy in the shape of a Consensus system which he considers to be closer to the ideal perfect democracy than the Majoritarian system. Although at the outset, the decision making process in a Consensus based system may appear to be slow and time consuming, that is not always the case. Moreover, any major decisions taken in such a system would certainly have a better chance of representing the basic desires of the larger group of people as a whole than the imposition of the majority tyranny. It is this tyranny of the majority which has been often been the dangerous disadvantage of having a Majoritarian government in place to begin with (Hague et. al. 1998). In my personal opinion, I feel that Lijphart is right to suggest the Consensus system as the one which takes the cake. We live in a world where merely one or even two opinions on an issue are no longer acceptable and people have become used to having choices in almost every aspect of life. Consider the number of choices they have even when it comes to bottled water, why should they not be allowed to have choices in governmental decisions? A Consensus model gives choices on who the people can vote for and those choices become valuable tools for democracy itself. It is obvious that our society and others like us are becoming increasingly diverse and issues need more than just one or two voices. After all has been said and done, the salient fact remains that the decisions made by the democracies of the world should be for the common good, not for the good of the many. Understandably, there will always be problems when we have to make decisions with the minorities in mind but that is what the democratic process is all about. We can not shy away from it just to expedite our laws or to quickly react to problems we face. With a Consensus system, the decision may take slightly longer or may not represent all the interests of the majority, but it will be most assuredly a democratic decision. Works Cited Dahl, R. A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hague, R. et. al. 1998. Comparative Government and Politics. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Lijphart, A. 1984. Democracies. Yale University Press, New Haven. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven. Read More