The Democratic Polity

1. The Democratic Polity PO 201: Introduction to International Studies and Political Science

2. The Three Traditions Revisited • Differences in the choices made by researchers among the rational, cultural, and structural approaches generally result in emphases on different factors as being important when answering political questions across states • Perhaps the most important of these politicalquestions addressed by comparativists today are: • What constitutes a modern democratic polity? • How do/have states become democratic?

3. The Modern Democratic Polity • As indicated by the theory and American politics sections of this course, the modern democratic polity is considered by many to represent the “apex” of political development • Definitive move away from “leviathan” and towards “social contract” • Egalitarianism under law, with the purpose of maximizing citizens’ capacities to safeguard interests, quality of life. • Manifestation of representative government, NOT direct democracy (Federalist #10) • Ideal type has served as exemplar for both earlier and more modern attempts at reform, “nation-building”

4. However, Many Questions Remain • We have previously addressed why democracy is a “favorable” form of government (Locke, Jefferson, etc.). But what constitutes a “modern democracy,” and why has it often been difficult to achieve? • What relationships between citizens and government (i.e., leadership accountability) and amongst governmental structures (i.e., separation of/checks on power) must maintain for a state to be called democratic? • Is it the mere presence/absence of voting rights that make a democracy, or must the “breadth” of those rights be taken into account (suffrage)? • Can we call countries that have representative structures democracies even if there is very little choice amongst candidates/platforms? • Is a “civic culture,” or one in which the procedural rules of representation are imbued and revered, a prerequisite or byproduct of democracy? • Short answer: • Modern democracy is NOT defined by comparativists as just the ability of some or all citizens to vote; it is in fact a very complex amalgam of conditions and actions

5. Dahl’s Polyarchy • Dahl seeks to elucidate the several defining characteristics of the complex democratic polity • For Dahl, the “ideal” democracy (or polyarchy) is the result of a systematic and (sometimes) sequential combination of numerous factors, including goals, norms, beliefs, and rules • Each “tradition” of comparative political analysis is represented in Dahl’s treatment

6. Major Points of Dahl’s Argument • A “civic” culture is the cornerstone of all modern democracy (CULTURAL component) • * The simple implantation or construction of “democratic” institutional structures is not enough, even at the beginning; a basic agreement on the purpose and rightful conduct of government itself (and not just the enforcement of rules) must be present (Aristotle’s “constitutional” regime) • * Beyond agreement on goals, a universal respect for the norms of leadership and policy selection must develop in order for democracy to be self-perpetuating • This culture must develop free from outside influence (reflections on the “social contract,” Aristotle)

7. Major Points of Dahl’s Argument • Institutions must be designed that allow for the realization of the ideals underlying the civic culture (STRUCTURAL component) • The decisions of majorities must be executed, adhered to by minorities, and serve as law until directly and openly changed (functioning legal system) • No changes to the system can be made by majorities for the sole purpose of increasing their tenure (i.e., no usurpation of power) • Majorities must be exposed to regular referenda on their performance (elections), and must vacate positions of power when they lose (replacement)

8. Major Points of Dahl’s Argument • An important structural adjunct: meaningful alternatives must be available in order to provide the prospect of governmental changes that are sensitive to the needs of majorities within the citizenry • Choosing amongst candidates/policies which do not differ in any real way is antidemocratic; alternative views and interests must find reasonable outlets

9. Major Points of Dahl’s Argument • In choosing amongst alternatives, voters must be allowed to make unimpeded cost/benefit calculations to the end of determining how well each alternative fits with their substantive interests (RATIONAL component) • Individuals should have identical opportunities to attain elected office • Information cannot be denied to voters who wish to obtain it • Participation is the “grease” for the “wheels” of democracy; all of the mentioned safeguards/norms are useless without actual voting, campaigning, and information gathering on the part of the electorate

10. POLYARCHICAL DEMOCRACY ACTUAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION(Voting, Campaigning, Info) CONSENSUS ON IMPORTANCE OF NORMS/CONDITIONS • SOCIAL TRAINING IN EIGHT NORMS/CONDITIONS • Pre-Voting Period • Alternatives Introducible • Identical Info on Alternatives • Voting Period • Voting Occurs • Votes Equally Weighted • Alternative with Most Votes Wins • Post-Voting Period • Winners Displace Losers • Orders of Elected Officials Executed • Officials Conduct Government Business AND/OR Set Structure for Further Voting SOCIETAL AGREEMENT ON WHAT CONSTITUTES UNIVERSE OF POLICY CHOICES SOCIETAL AUTONOMY AGREEMENT ON PERSONAL GOALS

11. Dahl’s Points in Perspective • What might Dahl’s formulation mean to analysts and policymakers? • From an analytical perspective, Dahl’s classification provides both general and specific means by which to compare polities • “Democratic” vs. “Non-Democratic” states • Differences in degree/ways in which democratic electorates adhere to/implement norms • Structural rules of democratic vs. non-democratic polities

12. Dahl’s Points in Perspective • From a pragmatic perspective, Dahl’s explanation provides a great deal of insight, advice, and caution • An absence of agreement regarding interests and the role of government makes the development of democracy much more difficult (Russian experience since 1991) • Voting without adequate choice amongst alternatives precludes democracy (USSR, Saddam’s Iraq) • Representative institutions (like voting) without widespread, indigenous cultural “indoctrination” (a la the social contract) do not constitute a democracy (Iraq after Saddam?) • ANY failure to make supreme the rule of law, based on culturally accepted norms, precludes democracy (Hitler’s Germany) • Low public participation in the function of government is dangerous even in established democracies, as it leads to apathy and an erosion of consensus on the importance of norms (US turnout and Coulter’s/Clinton’s views; Glendon?)

13. Conclusion • The concept of democracy is extremely complex (hence, “polyarchy”) • It is clear that even the most established modern democracies fall short of Dahl’s ideal, and that these polities must avoid complacency if they want to remain democratic • Culture, structure, and individual interests are all inextricably bound • Culture plays into individual interest aggregation, which lays the foundation for institutions • Democratic institutions allow for the majority-favored distribution of power and resources, but are only sustainable via continued, culturally-embedded respect for the ideal upon which they are based

14. Conclusion • In the remainder of this section, we focus more closely on the democratic polity by: • Comparing the various structures of existing democratic polities, with an eye to how culture and interest have dictated institutional arrangements (and vice versa); • Keeping Dahl’s treatment in mind, studying the various processes by which several countries have moved from non-democratic to democratic regimes; and • Examining the structural differences amongst different types of democratic polities, and how they came about