Why There Are Plenty of Elections in America but They Offer Little Choice - Case Study Example

Discuss: “There are Plenty of Elections in America but they offer little Choice” Introduction: The concept of democracy, in the 20th century, has been largely associated with the idea of human liberation and radical changes in the field of human rationality, economic advancement, legal awareness and religious rights conjointly have given birth to the development of such idea. The history of human civilization encompasses several revolutionary efforts that aimed at establishing the democratic dreams on a strong foundation. The United States of America and France are two nations that that in the Western socio-political situation, have enunciated the principles of democracy and consequent celebration of human rights to the best extent possible during the 18th century but state and legislative totalitarianism have led to the decline of such efforts: “Great revolutionary hopes have been transformed into totalitarian nightmares or state bureaucracies. Revolution and democracy have proved to be enemies, and one does not lead to the other. …the greatest misfortune of the twentieth century has been not poverty but totalitarianism …. The appeal to human rights, which was first heard in the United States and France at the end of the eighteenth century and was thereafter silenced so quickly in all countries, is heard once again in protest against all states that claim to represent a truth higher than the sovereignty of the people.”1 The democracy, as it has been suggested to strengthen the paths of political and civil rights, comprises of manifold issues, such as, freedom and fairness of political process, freedom to make choices, freedom to express individual political ideologies and freedom to choose political leaders according to respective political beliefs.2 An historical overview of the American party system, however, would reveal that political system in the United States has not been highly democratic and also does not provide her citizens with sufficient scopes to exercise their political rights and awareness. Unlike the noble provisions as enshrined under the Constitution of the United States, the political ideology that the “two-party system” reflects in the national political, exists quite in contradiction to the democratic ideologies and the limitation on making liberal choices has become more explicit with the gradual progress of time. In the introductory section of his book Democracy, Charles Tilly, has quite aptly, asked certain questions regarding democratic ideals and he also has suggested that unless the conditions that the questions essentially incorporate are fulfilled it cannot be said that the situation of democracy has been attained: “ …. 7. Are the people free from dominion of the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies, or any other powerful group? 8. Do cultural ethnic, religious, and other minority groups have reasonable self-determination, self-government, autonomy, or participation through informal consensus in the decision- making process?3 The two party system of the United States comprises the Democratic and Republican Party within its scope. Despite the fact that both these parties are considered oldest in the entire political system, however, their respective ideologies are institutionalized and these are also considered to some extent less flexible when it comes to satisfying diverse requirements of the cosmopolitan United States population: “The two major U.S. parties are among the oldest in the world. In fact, the Democratic Party, founded in 1828 … has a strong claim to being the oldest party in existence. …the Republican Party was organized in 1854. Several generations of citizens have supported the Democratic and Republican Parties, and they are part of American history. They have become institutionalized in our political process.”4 The Sustainment of the Two Party system in the American Politics, Political Culture and Limitation of Choices in Election Process: In a democratic set up, the flourish of a different or additional party system is possible only when common people will express their consent toward that. It is a matter of prime importance in a democratic set up that development of an alternative political system is only possible when common people will encourage in yielding of the same. Keeping this aspect in mind, when political behaviorism of the common citizens of the United States is evaluated, it becomes clear that the mass has traditionally favored the two party system and while it has been deeply institutionalized within the layer of American culture, the common Americans, despite agreeing to the fact that American two party political system has filed to meet up their expectations, have not responded strongly enough to change the existing system. In this context the tone of criticism against voters’ political behaviorism is evident from the observation of Theodore J. Lowi and Benjamin Ginsberg: “We often refer to the United States as a nation with a “two-party system.” By this we mean that in the United States the Democratic and Republican parties complete for office and power. Most Americans believe that party competition contributes to the heath of the democratic process. Certainly, we are more than just a bit suspicious of those national that claim to be ruled by their people but do not tolerate the existence of opposing parties.”5 This observation clearly suggests that absence of the third party system and lack of option in elections have actually evolved due to common people’s support for the conventional political outlook and culture. There is no denial that American democracy has come a long way since the time when the importance of democracy and the principles of human rights were first preached. At the same time, the American social structure also has undergone an extensive transformation, resulting in inclusion of extensive cosmopolitan cultural elements within the established social structure but reflection of the diversity has not occurred at the equal magnitude at political cultural outlook as the common Americans do not provide adequate importance in support of the observation that a third party system is required in order to attain a great deal of choice making scope. Myron Joel Aronoff, in this context has agreed with Geertz’s and suggested that “culture is the structure of meanings through which men shape their experience, and that politics is one of the main public arenas in which such structures unfold ….”6 An overview of the American politics since the commencement of public antagonism against national political situation would reveal that different Presidents, during the time of taking charge of their offices, have promised the American population in giving the chance to attain whatever has remained unattained. Starting from President Regan to Bush, on every occasion, the political culture of the United States has assured common people to provide them with scopes to enjoy their civil and human rights without arbitrary interference of the governmental instruments and they also have expressed their respective beliefs in support of the argument that unless liberty is provided to common people, a peaceful existence in the socio-political situation cannot be attained: “Calls for democracy and human rights are being reborn everywhere. And there calls are an expression of support for the values …. They encourage our hopes for a more stable, more peaceful, more prosperous world.”7 However, when it comes to receiving refection of the same promises in the practical American socio-political situation, it becomes clear that these words of promises are nothing more than just assimilation of emotionally overwhelming adjectives that do not have any connection with the processes adopted by the American governmental instruments to retain the situation of social harmony. While the common Americans strive to attain the principles of Democracy and always provide a great deal of importance on the protection of democratic and human rights principles, repeated military interferences by the United States, both in national and international scenario, in the name of protecting democracy and national security have actually contradicted such observation and in this context Mark Peceny’s question in this context is perfectly justified: “Do American efforts to promote democracy during military interventions lead to democratization of target states? …scholars approached this question with unrelieved skepticism … that U.S. attempts to export democracy have generally been “negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive.””8 While inhabitants of a state exercise their voting rights for the purpose of enjoying a democratic existence and also wish that the government they have selected would provide them with sufficient scope to enjoy their respective civil rights, the limitation of options in the American political situation clearly restrain the common people from attaining their desired goals regarding enjoyment of democracy and civil rights, as enshrined by the U.S. Constitution, to the best extent possible. The history of American electoral procedure clearly shows that since 1932 onwards the shift of Presidential power has occurred between Democrat and Republicans and candidates from no other political party was considered by common people as eligible to be selected for the Presidential post.9 This incident clearly shows that common American people have a serious lack of socio-political flexibility when it comes to adopting a new political structure, compared to the conventional “two-party system.” However, the common citizens of the United States have protested since the 1960 onwards against all forms of military intervention by the United States both in the national and international political situation, however, the policy makers have refuted such protests on the rational of the argument that U.S. cannot afford to move away from the path of military intervention in the name of protecting national security and democratic rights of common people. The common citizens of the United States have provided adequate importance on the argument that democracy can only be protected when United States exists in perfect harmony with rest of world but this recurrent military interventions are actually acting as stumbling blocks against attainment of the goal. However, the history of American elections, especially since the 1960 onwards would clearly suggest that Presidential power has shifted between two poles of the “two party” structure but after coming to power each of these parties and their representatives have followed the same path of aggression that finally has led to the violation of democratic principles: “…policymakers have engaged in a relentless search for ways to reconcile the real democratization of target states with American security concerns. This is most clear for those presidents who adopted proliberalization policies because they were convinced that only the genuine democratization of target states would create stronger and more stable allied regimes …. As the pattern of U.S. military interventions more closely reflects the expectations of domestic liberalism in the contemporary era, the U.S. commitment to democracy is likely to become even more genuine and the success of American proliberalization policies in building democracy more apparent.”10 While reflecting upon the limitation of the “two party” system in the context of ensuring democracy in the socio-political situation of the United States, the scholarly arguments have clearly suggested that evolve of a third party is system seems to be of high importance. Despite the fact that American political culture has never encouraged in the development of a strong socialized form of government and flourish of the consequent ideologies, but the socialist scholars are of opinion that flexibility in the electoral process will increase only when a socialist third party would participate in the American socio-political domain. I.B. Tverdokhleb’s argument in this context draws special attention: “The “two-party system” is the most important political institution in the United States that ensures the supremacy of the monopolistic bourgeoisie …. Despite obvious theoretical weakness and a failure to comprehend American reality, the petty-bourgeois leader of the third party movement projected anti-capitalist themes in their proposal and propaganda that made it possible to radicalize participants in the movement for independent political action. Conditions were right for resolving the most important task – the union of antimonopolistic, anticapitalistic ideology with the popular movement.”11 It is not that the possibility of evolving a third party system never occurred in the American political cultural scenario. A historical evaluation of political culture since 1912 to 1930 would reveal that four types of parties emerged in the U.S. political scenario between this period, namely: Bolter parties (the factions of the major parties), Farmer-labor parties (parties representing farmers and urban working population), Parties of ideological protest (parties that criticized the conventional system more than the farmer-labor parties) and Single-issue parties (parties that promoted a single political issue).12 However, none of these parties prevailed in the American political scenario mainly because of the reason that American population believes that the system of “alternating control of the government”13 as enunciated by the “two-party system” is more effective compared to the third party system. Conclusion: The conventional capitalist and anti-bourgeois socio-cultural attitudes are the main factors that have prevented a third-party structure from coming into popularity. While the conventional “two-party system” has restricted the American population from attaining a more flexible electoral procedure, rigidness of the common American culture is equally responsible in the context of attaining limited voting rights. The American people have actually encouraged the “two-party system” as the most prevailing and undisputed political culture in the United States and even when they realize quite clearly that the established electoral system is helping them neither to attain flexibility of voting rights nor to smooth the path of democracy, they have come up with adequate initiatives to alter the ongoing process. Thus, irrespective of the fact that in the American history a lot of elections have taken place and common people also have exercised their voting rights to attain the facilities of civil right and democracy to the best extent possible, but these elections offer a limited scope to common people and unless evolve of a strong third party system is encouraged in the American socio-political context, the limitation over exercising voting rights for the purpose of enjoying a better democratic existence would remain unattained. References Aronoff, M.J. 1983. Culture and political change. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Davies, P. and Davies, P.J. 1999. US elections today. 2nd Ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Disch, L.J. 2002. The tyranny of the two-party system. New York: Columbia University Press. Doyle, M. 1997. “Peace, Liberty, and Democracy: Realists and Liberals Contest a Legacy”. American democracy promotion: impulses, strategies, and impacts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldman, J. Berry, J.M. and Janda, K. 2008. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Texas Edition. 10th Ed. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Peceny, M. 1999. Democracy at the point of bayonets. Penn State: Penn State Press. Tilly, C. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Touraine, A. 1997. What is democracy?. New York: Westview Press. Tverdokhleb, I.B. 1985. “The Movement for Creation of a Progressive Third Party in the United States During the Mid-1930s.” Soviet-American dialogue on the New Deal. Missouri: University of Missouri Press. Read More