What Are the Core Ideas behind Polyarchy - Coursework Example

What are the core ideas behind polyarchy? How, if at all, do they differ from democracy? The term polyarchy was first used in modern political science by Robert A. Dahl. He used this term to describe a form of government which was first executed in the United States and later it was accepted and executed by many other countries. In a democracy, it is the fundamental rule that when a combined decision has to be taken, each individual in the political party is entitled to have his interest given equal importance and consideration. In simple terms, polyarchy is a government which is formed by many persons, who may belong to whatever order or class (Dahl, 1956). Polyarchy is not only a term that is used for political state of a country but is also a common term in organizational politics. It is a term used in directory and identity management to refer to organizational structures consisting of different hierarchical levels. These kinds of structures are extremely common in modern organizations. However such models are difficult to be seen in traditional directories. Today many companies such as the Burton Group, Bridgestream, Sun, Oracle, Novell, Trusted Network Technologies, and Microsoft commonly use this term (Wikipedia, 2007). Dahls original theory of Polyarchal Democracy is presented in his 1956 book entitled, A Preface to Democratic Theory. Dahl presents eight conditions in this book, which measure the extent to which majority rule is in effect in an organization. These are as follows: the first condition says that every member of the organization performs the acts we assume to constitute an expression of preference among the scheduled alternatives, e.g., voting; secondly in tabulating these expressions (votes), the weight assigned to each individual is identical or same. In other words there is equality being practiced; the third condition is that the alternative with the greatest number of votes is declared the winning choice or in other words, only the contestent who gets the maximum vote win the election; the fifth condition is that any member who perceives a set of alternatives, at least one of which he regards as preferable to any of the alternatives presently scheduled, can insert his preferred alternative/s among those scheduled for voting; All individuals possess identical information about the alternatives; Alternatives whether the leaders or policies with the highest number of votes displace any alternatives (leaders or policies) with fewer votes; The orders of elected officials are executed; and the final condition states that either all interelection decisions are subordinate or excutory to those arrived at during the election stage, i.e, elections are in a sense controlling; or new decisions during the interelection period are governed by the preceding seven conditions, operating, however, under rather different institutional circumstances; or both. Hence Dahl proposed that those organizations that follow all the above mentioned eight conditions be considered as polyarchy. In other words, Dahl recommended the usage of the term polyarchy to an organization that scores high on the scales for all the eight conditions (Dahl, 1956). In recent years Dahl modified these eight conditions that defined Polyarchy, into seven attributes. In his 1989 book, Democracy and its critics, Dahl gives the following characteristics of a polyarchy: 1) Elected officials: Control over governmental decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials. 2) Free and fair elections: Elected officials are chosen and peacefully removed in relatively frequent, fair and free elections in which coercion is quite limited. 3) Inclusive suffrage: Practically all adults have the right to vote in these elections. 4) The right to run for office: Most adults also have the right to run for the public offices for which candidates run in these elections. 5) Freedom of expression: Citizens have an effectively enforced right to freedom of expression, particularly political expression, including criticism of the officials, the conduct of the government, the prevailing political, economic, and social system, and the dominant ideology. 6) Alternative information: They also have access to alternative sources of information that are not monopolized by the government or any other single group. 7) Associational autonomy: They have an effectively enforced right to form and join autonomous associations, including political associations, such as political parties and interest groups, that attempt to influence the government by competing in elections and by other peaceful means (Dahl, 1989). In Robert A. Dahl’s book Polyarchy: participation and opposition, Dahl assumes form the beginning of the argument that for a good democracy the basic requirements among a large number of people are as follows: 1. Freedom to form and join organizations; 2. Freedom of expression; 3. Right to vote; 4. Eligibility for public office; 5. Right of political leader to compete for votes; 6. Alternative sources of information; 7. Free and fair elections and 8. Institutions for making government policies depend on votes. Dahl defines polyarchy as: a relatively (but incompletely) democratized regime. Which means to say that, polyarchies are regimes that have been “substantively popularized and liberalized,” and have become “highly inclusive and extensively open to public contestation” (Dahl, 1971a). Seven sets of conditions that considerably increase the chances of public contestation and polyarchy according to the book Polyarchy: participation and opposition, are: Historical Sequences: the process of setting up polyarchy that is most favourable, is one that transforms previously legitimate hegemonic structures into structures suitable for political competition – in other words peaceful evolution within an independent nation-state. Socioeconomic Order, concentration: which goes to say that polyarchy is unlikely to be maintained unless a pluralistic social order and additionally, a competitive regime cannot be maintained in a country where the military or police forces are used to intervening in politics. Socioeconomic Order, level of development: which says that the chances for political competition depend on the socioeconomic level of society, particularly on the state’s ability to: provide literacy, education and communication; create a pluralistic social order; and prevent extreme inequalities. Equalities and Inequalities: in a state with a hegemonic regime, extreme inequalities in the distribution of key values reduce opportunities for public contestation, and in regimes with established public contestation, extreme inequalities increase the chances that competitive politics will be displaced by hegemony. By doing so, polyarchies are mostly vulnerable to the effects of extreme inequalities. Subcultures, Cleavage Patterns and Governmental Effectiveness: polyarchy is most likely to be found in comparatively homogenous countries than in countries with a great amount of sub-cultural pluralism. Polyarchy in ethnically fractured societies calls for incorporating the diverse groups into the regime. This result in establishing formal constitutional provisions that provides a high degree of security to the subcultures and providing effective governance. The Beliefs of Political Activists: given that no explanatory theory can account satisfactorily for the beliefs of political activists, it is important as a practical matter to treat the beliefs and ideas of political activists as a major independent variable in the creation of polyarchies. Foreign Control: which is the domination forced by people from foreign country can be so crucial as to override all other conditions, and in this way foreign domination can affect all of the conditions which is discussed above and alter the options available to the regime itself. Dahl concludes with a discussion of some implications for strategies of change in hegemonic regimes, focusing mainly on the role of foreign assistance and political action (Dahl, 1971a). Polyarchy is a concept meant to pick out national state regimes that are characterized by highly inclusive levels of participation in elections and highly competitive contestation for public office. The two dimensions—inclusiveness and public contestation—can of course help analyze the organization of power at sub-national and supranational levels, as well as the organization of power in political parties and social institutions such as churches, families, schools, and business firms. But Dahl (1971b) introduced the term in political science with an eye to focusing on the regime organization of national states. Finally coming to the answer of the question “How, if at all, do they differ from democracy?” Democracy, if it has to be genuine and effective, it has to regain the three fundamentals of smallness, freedom and, above all, abstinence from interruption in peoples lives.  Hence Dahl has described a more suitable word to characterize democracy in future might be polyarchy. This is mainly because polyarchy conveys the basic idea of variety that could exist but only if the three pre-requisites (smallness, freedom, abstinence) are satisfied.  While democracy is based on the dissimilarity between a dominating majority and subjected minorities, polyarchy goes beyond the opposition between majority and minorities. References Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1971a) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1971b). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wikipedia, (2007) Polyarchy [Online] Available from: [Accessed on 8 May 2007] Read More