Democracy

 Tony Benn on democracy:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KbD
NSkSovQ
 Watch the entire film on YouTube
 Democracy as a Natural Order
“Democracy is any form of government in which the rules of
society are decided by the people who will be bound by
them.”*
PEOPLE GOVERNING THEMSELVES
That was the original system of making decisions for
society – primitive democracy which exists for tens of
thousands of years before the rise of the state
When the state appears 5,000 years ago, it seeks to take
the decision-making power away from society
Then, democracy becomes a way of trying to restrain state
power and put the state under the people’s control
*Catherine Kellogg, Democratic Theory, in: Janine Brodie and Sandra Rein, Critical
Concepts: An Introduction to Politics, 3d edition.
3 overlapping epochs in the historical development of democracy -
John Keane, The Life and Death of Democracy
Phase One
Assembly Democracy – starting around 2,500 BCE, in lands now
within the territories of Iran, Iraq and Syria
“During the first phase of democracy the seeds of its basic
institution – self-government through an assembly of equals –
were scattered across many different soils and climes, ranging
from the Indian subcontinent and the prosperous Phoenician
empire to the western shores of provincial Europe. These
popular assemblies took root, accompanied by various ancillary
institutional rules and customs, like written constitutions, the
payment of jurors and elected officials, the freedom to speak in
public, voting machines, voting by lot and trial before elected or
selected juries. There were efforts as well to stop bossy leaders
in their tracks, using such methods as the mandatory election of
kings…” (The Life and Death of Democracy, p.xvi)
Best-known example – Athens, 5th century BCE
Athenian democracy
Direct democracy: citizens (about 10% of the population)
participated directly in initiating, deliberating, and passing of,
the legislation. The Assembly, no less than 6,000 strong (out
of 22,000 citizens of Athens), convened about every 10 days.
Supreme power to decide on every issue of state policy
Citizen juries: justice is responsibility of citizens (juries
composed of 501-1001 citizens)
Appointment of citizens to political office by lot
Citizen-soldiers: every citizen had a duty to serve in the army
Ostracism: a bad politician could be kicked out of office by the
people
*See Patrick Watson and Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy. Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys
Ltd., 1988, p.12
 Phase Two
Representative Democracy
Starts around 10th-12th centuries in Western Europe with the
invention of parliamentary assemblies
 Reaches its classic forms in the 18th century. Officially regarded as
normative today.
 Marquis d’Argenson, Foreign Minister of French King Louis XV,
1765:
 “False democracy soon collapses into anarchy. It is government of
the multitude; such is a people in revolt, insolently scorning law
and reason. Its tyrannical despotism is obvious from the violence
of its movements and the uncertainty of its deliberations. In true
democracy, one acts through deputies, who are authorized by
election; the mission of those elected by the people and the
authority that such officials carry constitute the public power.”
 (Keane, p. xviii)
Phase Three
Monitory Democracy (term coined by John Keane)
After World War II
Invention of about 100 power-monitoring devices which had never
existed before
Increase citizen ability to control the state which is organized on the
basis of representative democracy
Public integrity commissions
Judicial activism
Local courts
Workplace tribunals
Citizens assemblies
Think tanks
The Internet
Etc.
How much power do they have? And whose interests do they serve?
The Classical Theory of Democracy
The triple meaning:
Democracy as source of state authority – power of the
people
Democracy as the purpose of government – the common
good
Democracy as a method of choosing political leaders – by
the people
Abraham Lincoln: “Government of the people, by the people,
and for the people” (1863)
Also from Lincoln (1861): “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the
people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it,
or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it”.
Joseph Schumpeter, 1942:
The classical theory is too broad and vague. It is much
more practical to narrow the meaning of democracy
to the method:
“The democratic method is
that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions
in which individuals acquire the power to decide
by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s
vote”.*
*Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper,
1947, p.269
2 major dimensions of the democratic method:*
contestation – free and fair competition between
candidates
participation – all adult citizens have the right to vote
The use of this method requires the freedoms of:
expression, to speak publicly and publish one’s
views
assembly, to gather for political purposes
association, to form political organizations
*Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1971; Samuel Huntington, The
Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
University of Oklahoma Press, 1991
In contemporary politics, the term “democracy” is used
mostly in the Schumpeterian, rather than classical,
sense:
Representative democracy
Electoral democracy
Formal democracy
“The people” elect a government and keep it
accountable
Robert Dahl: It is more precise to call it “polyarchy” (“rule
by many”, meaning more than 3 persons) rather than
“democracy”
How is a democracy established?
In most cases, by a revolution
It may start as reforms initiated by the ruling class – for the purposes of
securing their rule through concessions to society
As the process intensifies, the old regime is overthrown
Then a democratic regime is established (popular sovereignty, democratic
rights and freedoms, accountable government)
Then the struggle for power is waged within a democracy
Class interests shape the struggle
Those who have economic power struggle to keep it
But democracy – bu its very idea - threatens the rich and the powerful
The key conflict – the people vs. the ruling classes
If a democratic regime can contain that conflict through various
compromises, a democracy becomes stable
If not, democracy may evolve toward socialism
Or – be replaced by an authoritarian regime
“Democracy promotion”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ruaDrxgBY8
Democracy’s Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century.
NY: Freedom House, 2001 http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html
Democracy’s Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century.
NY: Freedom House, 2001 http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html
Since 1900, the number of internationally recognized
independent states has grown
from 55 to nearly 200
Today, governments in 120 countries are formed by
democratic method
62.5% of the world’s population live in those countries
Key events which led to this expansion:
The defeat of fascism in World War 2 (1939-45)
The fall of Western colonial empires (1950s-70s)
The fall of Western authoritarian regimes in
Southern Europe and Latin America (1970s-1980s)
The fall of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union (1989-91)
A 21st Century Democratic Paradox
Democracy is accepted as the normal – and even
normative - form of government more widely in the
world than ever before
And yet, the real scope of democratic practices is very
limited.
The sea of democracy has never been wider.
But it is very shallow
And it shows signs of drying out
Democracy in retreat
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/01/08/the-
retreat-of-global-democracy-stopped-in-2018
Global public opinion on democracy:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/10/24/even-in-era-of-
disillusionment-many-around-the-world-say-ordinary-
citizens-can-influence-government/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-
support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/
 Pew Research poll on global
disappointment with democracy:
 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/201
9/04/29/many-across-the-globe-are-diss
atisfied-with-how-democracy-is-working/
Pew Research
poll, 2008
 Why is citizens’ trust in government
declining in the US?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2
019/07/22/key-findings-about-americans-
declining-trust-in-government-and-each-
other/
In the 21st century, formal democracy is regarded as a
normal method to create a government
But, governments created by the democratic method
show their deficiency in a number of important areas,
including:
Declining ability to manage economies
Growth of social inequality
The environmental crisis
Continuing ethnic and religious conflicts
Continuing practices of mass violence (wars, terrorism,
arms races)
Liberal Democracy: Main Principles
Individualism
Society is composed of individuals.
The individual is sovereign: individual rights are
privileged over rights of groups and society
Equality: All individuals have equal rights
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” –
The American Declaration of Independence
Reason
People are capable of making rational decisions about
anything
They can change the institutions of society they live in
Rights
Society must recognize certain individual liberties and
claims as givens
The list of rights has expanded in the past two centuries,
especially since the establishment of the United Nations
Organization:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreIn
struments.aspx
Protection of private property
A key duty of the state, as part of its obligation to protect
individual rights and the private sphere
Freedom
Individuals’ ability to act without interference by the
state or other citizens
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Adopted in 1982 as part of the Constitution Act:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
LD is ambivalent about the role of the state:
The state as the provider of public goods
vs.
The state as a source of dangers to private interests
LD seeks to make the state strong and capable by
making it legitimate through the democratic method
(democracy makes state power rightful and just,
enables the state to rule)
And – it seeks to limit state authority over society
through separation of powers, rule of law,
constitutionalism
Key principle of LD: distinction between
--the private sphere (personal life of individuals, the family,
civil society autonomous from the state, religion, the market
economy) and
--the public sphere (political society, the state, government
policies)
LD insists that activities of the state should be confined to the
public sphere
The public sphere should not be too large
The private sphere should be autonomous from the state
and protected from the state’s encroachments
Liberal concern: democracy, understood in the broad,
classical sense, may easily lead to the violation of society’s
autonomy.
Majority rule always contains the danger of suppression of
minorities – in the name of democracy. “Tyranny of the
majority” – Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy may undermine and even destroy liberty
Liberty is enhanced by democracy – but it must be
protected from democracy
“Illiberal democracy” vs liberal democracy
This ambivalence is a source of LD’s strength and durability
The concern for individual rights
The emphasis on the autonomy of society from the
state
The emphasis on pluralism
are very important political values
But the compromise at the core of LD also makes it
vulnerable to challenges:
Both from the Right and from the Left
From the Right: LD fragments society and the state, it
makes for disorder, it weakens the state. It is too much
democracy
From the Left: LD secures privileges of the elites – both
private elites and state elites. This democracy is too limited
In the history of liberal democracy, liberalism precedes
democracy
When liberal principles become accepted in the practice of
more and more Western states (18th-19th centuries), the
exercise of political rights and freedoms is limited
Classical, laissez-faire liberalism is concerned primarily
about limiting state power and protecting the private
sphere – the market economy in the first place
In the 20th century, the extension of political rights to all
adults was accompanied by the expansion of the
activities of the state
The balance between the private and public spheres shifted
in favour of the public sphere, as the liberal-democratic
state, under the pressure of majorities, widens the scope
of its activities, recognizes a wider range of rights,
including labour’s right of collective bargaining
Welfare-state liberalism emphasized the role of the state as
provider of public goods
In the last 40 years – movement in the opposite direction
Conservative, or neoliberal, forces gained political
dominance in the West (led by Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher in UK, President Ronald Reagan in the US)
 The Trilateral Commission and the idea of “The Crisis of
Democracy” (1975):

 There is too much democracy in the West

 Democracy is becoming “ungovernable”
 “Recent years in the Trilateral countries have seen the
expansion of the demands on government from individuals and
groups. The expansion takes the form of:
( I ) the involvement of an increasing proportion of the
population in political activity;
(2) the development of new groups and of new consciousness
on the part of old groups, including youth, regional groups, and
ethnic minorities;
(3) the diversification of the political means and tactics which
groups use to secure their ends;
(4) an increasing expectation on the part of groups that
government has the responsibility to meet their needs; and
(5) an escalation in what they conceive those needs to be.”
(Continued on next page) 
“The result is an "overload" on government and the
expansion of the role of government in the economy and
society. During the 1960s governmental expenditures, as a
proportion of GNP, increased significantly in all the principal
Trilateral countries, except for Japan. This expansion of
governmental activity was attributed not so much to the
strength of government as to its weakness and the inability
and unwillingness of central political leaders to reject the
demands made upon them by numerically and functionally
important groups in their society.
(Continued on the next page)
The impetus to respond to the demands which groups
made on government is deeply rooted in both the attitudinal
and structural features of a democratic society. The
democratic idea that government should be responsive to
the people creates the expectation that government should
meet the needs and correct the evils affecting particular
groups in society. Confronted with the structural imperative
of competitive elections every few years, political leaders
can hardly do anything else.”* 
*Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, Joji Watanuki. The Crisis of
Democracy. Report on the Governability of Democracies to the
Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press, 1975,
pp.163-164
The “conservative revolution”, launched by Thatcher and
Reagan, began to dismantle the welfare state in the name
of individual freedom and market autonomy.
As electoral democracy marched forward, expanding
territorially around the globe,
the ability and willingness of the democratic states to satisfy
social demands declined.
Liberal democracy is tailored to the needs of capitalism
But at the same time, there is a conflict between the logic of
democracy and the logic of capitalism
In the market economy, people are formally equal free
agents, each after his/her own interests
But in reality, they have vastly different amounts of social
power
The market system, in and by itself, does not reduce those
differences. On the contrary, it increases existing
inequalities – both within societies and between societies.
Democracy, on the other hand, is rooted in the idea of
equality. Vigorous practice of democracy in society
does lead to lessening of social inequalities.
Another contradiction: in a democracy, citizens work
together to achieve common goals
In a market economy, people compete, trying to gain
advantage over each other – “survival of the fittest”
(Herbert Spencer)
Can the contradictions between:
socioeconomic inequality and political equality, and
between cooperation and competition –
be kept under control?
 Explosive growth of income inequality in
America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKK
QnijnsM
 Growth of pay gap between top managers and workers, USA:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/whats-behind-the-huge-and-growing-ceo-worker-pay-gap/275435/
Income inequality has grown in Canada, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkBiv5ZD7s&featur
e=youtu.be
And – worldwide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
 Corporations are more powerful than
states – new study:
 https://www.nationofchange.org/2018/10/
18/the-majority-of-the-worlds-richest-
entities-are-corporations-not-
governments/
http://www.ted.com We feel instinctively that societies
with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong.
Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic
inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and
poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan,
even such basic values as trust.
UN Human Development Report 2002:
“Economically, politically and technologically, the world has
never seemed more free – or more unjust”
“Advancing human development requires governance that is
democratic both in form and in substance” 
Why democracy is key to development:
1/ Participating in decision-making is a fundamental human
right
2/ Democracy protects people from political and economic
catastrophes – famines, wars (governments are more
circumspect, attentive to public needs)
  -Since 1995, 10% of population of North Korea died of
famine
-In 1958-61, 30 mln. died of famine in China
-In India, there has not been a single famine since 1947,
despite crop failures 
3/”Democratic governance can trigger a virtuous cycle of
development – as political freedom empowers people to
press for policies that expand social and economic
opportunities, and as open debates help communities
shape their priorities”
BUT:
“The links between democracy and human development
are not automatic: when a small elite dominates
economic and political decisions, the link between
democracy and equity can be broken” (p.4)
At issue:
WHO CONTROLS THE STATE?
WHOSE INTERESTS DOES THE STATE SERVE?
Can an egalitarian political system coexist long
with massive and growing socioeconomic inequality?
Can concentration of economic power in the hands of a
few be reconciled with political pluralism?
Globalization vs. democracy
Eberhard Kienle, research professor at CNRS in Paris and
Grenoble:
“Today one of the major challenges to liberal democracy
arises out of the turn taken by liberal economies since the
late 1970s. Defined as a form of government that
combines the election of the rulers by the ruled with
effective guarantees for the liberties of all, liberal
democracy is eroded by transformations changing the
very type of economy that is frequently considered its
natural counterpart or historic birthplace.”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/global-competitiveness-
erosion-of-checks-and-balances-and-demise-of-liberal-
democracy
Communist dictatorship in our midst – Elizabeth
Anderson
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/16/communist-
dictatorship-in-our-midst/
What is the main purpose of liberal democracy?
Can it be reduced to serving the interests of capital?
Can it be made to serve the public interest?
Can it combine both of these and thus survive?
How these contradictions can be resolved:

1. At democracy’s expense:
--limit democracy by manipulating its workings
- --limit democracy by strengthening coercive powers of the
state
- --mobilize the nation to unite, despite the inequalities – to
defend itself against an external enemy, or to conquer
other nations
- --foster racial and ethnic divisions, mobilize majorities
against minorities
- --opt for full-fledged fascism
2. In favour of democracy:

--Widen the channels through which citizens can effectively

participate in politics
--Use new information technologies, network-type forms of
political organizing
--Extend democracy into the workplace (employee
ownership)
--Reduce the influence of big money on political systems
--Increase the state’s ability to control economic elites
--Create new forms of regulation of market economies both at
the national and the global scale
--Develop effective social policies