Democratization: Comparative Studies

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:55:42 +0200

Some notes on today's readings:

Joseph Schumpeter in the 1940's challenged the classical theory of democracy and ended up creating a new, nearly uncontested theory.
The classical theory, as he defined it was, "the will of the people (source) and the 'common good' (purpose).'
He began by outlining the common good as simplistic and obvious; the challenge was in differing background philosophies of the people, thus differing perspectives on this meta-common good. However, by doing away with ignorance, stupidity, (he had a sense of humor) and sinister interests, the essance of the common good can be expounded by the specialists we elect. Nonetheless, while the people may agree upon a common good, the individualistic aspects will be under constant and controversial scrutiny- ie, the community agrees on healthcare, however, there may be disagreements on the inclusion of birth control or vaccinations.
The utilitarian view uses rational arguements to create a unity in individual voices, versus the romantist view of the "soul of the people."
The classical theory of democracy propounded the need for people to decide an issue, and then elect officials to represent these issues and people. Schumpeter's theory reverses this role, - a move easily viewed during any election in a Western democracy.
He defines the democratic method as "an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for election."
The essay ended on the point the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of the people. The commonsense solution would be therefore poportional representation. However, in a time of duress, such a system would be unwieldy and lacking in effectivity.

In the 1990's, Samuel Huntington continued on this vein, solidfying the definition of democracy in his " The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century"
His analysis was parallel to Robert Dahl's idea of a 'polyarchy' or rule of the minorities as the closest realization of democracy which includes contestation and participation (political freedoms included in this definition are such of publication, speech, debate, organization, and assembly)
For the sake of brevity, the five points in defining democracy are outlined below
1. Free and fair elections
2. Those elected are those who wield the power (ie - there are no puppet governments)
3. Stable political systems (coups, which may be possible, are not plausible)
4. Democracy viewed as a dichotomous variable - (he's examining the transition of non-democratic regimes to democratic, so the concept of 'semi-democracies is plausible, ie, the case of Turkey during 1950-1960's)
5. This point is more focused on the defining of authoritarian versus totalitarian. The totalitarian is viewed more as: single party ruled by one man, pervasive and powerful secret police, highly developed idealogy which is close to being recognized, and total governmental control over mass communications.
Contrasted to the authoritarian: single party, weak idealogy, no effort to remake the society, and no mass mobilization.

Dankwart Rustow, in the 1960's examined how the democratic system may be best upheld. The bit of his work I read really didnt deal with any relevant to the issue, but there was an interesting quote by Bernard Crick:
"...The moral consensus of a free state is not something mysteriously prior to or above politics: it is the activity of politics itself."
Thus, it is not within theory we find democracy, but rather in the middleclass bodies in voting booths. It is also within the tenuosity and malleability of the mentality during a time of conflict that the strength of that particular democracy can be found.
For example, during the American crisis of 11 Sept., the American people did not turn inward to critique their government (when examining it topographically) but rather united with it, to resolve a common conflict. Also can be found in the American mentality during the Cold War. Also during the "Blitz" in England in 1940's or during Margaret Thatcher's war against the Argentinians in Falkan Isl.
Here the idea of a national unity for the common good is found. It is precisely that which is required within nations who seek to form a democratic nation. The background condition, often created by conflict, to the new implementation would be this national unity, which can be a language, religion, or culture. Rather linear. In order to create a democracy, there must be a national unity, for which there must be conflict. Otherwise, there is no initiative need for change.

Lastly, F. Fukuyama, in the 1990's work "The End of History and the Last Man" reflects on the cyclical nature of democracies. Most notable were his charts of Liberal Democracies worldwide over the past two hundred years. His conclusion was that despite the reversals of some democracies back into non-democratic systems, (ie - Latin America had fewer democracies than in 1955) these reversals often reversed themselves, so today we have more democratic systems than before in history. He also notes the ability of non Western democracies to create their own terms of human rights without reverting the 'Eurocentric' viewpoints.

Comments

Advocatus Diaboli

Democratization: Comparative Studies