Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This is a summary I started making intended for personal use only, but I figured a lot more people
could profit from it. The quality might not be up to par, as I haven't checked for any spelling errors.
However, I am confident it is sufficiently clear.
For any comments, questions or additions, please visit this link and comment there:
http://felixdicit.com/?p=984
The origins of democracy isn't continuous, after the fall of the Greek and Roman empires it
disappeared. Democracy wasn't invented 'once and for all', and it is hard to find out how much of it was
diffused from its early sources and how much, if any, of it was independently invented in different
times and places.
According to Dahl, some of the expansion of democracy perhaps a good deal of it can be
accounted for mainly by the diffusion of democratic ideas and practices, but diffusion can't provide the
whole explanation. It seems to have been invented more than once, and in more than one place. If the
conditions for inventing democracy where favourable in one place at one time, why not in other places
and times? (p.9)
He assumes democracy can be independently invented and reinvented whenever the appropriate
conditions exist. A push toward democratic participation develops out of what we might call 'the logic
of equality'. It might have been developed as far back as the hunter-gatherer era. When people settled
down, a certain hierarchy formed. Popular governments where replaced with monarchies, despotisms,
aristocracies and oligarchies, all based on ranking or hierarchy. Then, around 500 B.C.E. In several
places, favourable conditions reappeared and small groups began developing governmental systems
with opportunities to participate in group decisions primitive democracy. This happened three times
along the mediterranean, some in northern Europe.
THE MEDITERRANEAN
In classical Greece and Rome, systems with substantial popular participation was first
established on a solid basis, so that they could endure for centuries. Greece was made up of hundreds of
individual city-states. Athens was the most famous. In 507 B.C.E they adopted a system of popular
government that lasted nearly two centuries, until it was conquered by Macedonia in 321 B.C.E.
Demos (people) and Kratos (to rule) was probably coined by Athenians. It was a very complex
system. The assembly was chosen through lottery, and they elected public officials, like Generals.
These political institutions of Greek democracy, were ignored or rejected during the development of
modern representative democracy.
Romans called their system a republic, res (thing, affair) and publicus (public), so a 'business of
the people'. Rights of participation was restricted to patricians, or aristocrats. After struggles, the plebs
also gained entry. Rights where restricted to men only, like the greeks and all democracies until the
twentieth century. Politics was restricted to theforum Romanum, for many too far to participate.
Romans never adopted a representative government based on democratically elected representatives.
The Roman Republic endured until 130 B.C.E, but was eradicated with the dictatorship of
Julius Caesar. After his assassination (44BCE), the republic became an empire ruled by its emperors.
With that, popular rule vanished from southern Europe for nearly a thousand years.
Around 1100CE popular rule reemerged in many cities in Northern Italy. Participation was
restricted to members of upper-class families: nobles, large land owners, etc. In time, the newly rich,
the smaller merchants and bankers, skilled craftsmen (united in guilds), footsoldiers, and the like
became more dominant and started to organize themselves. They could threaten uprises, and as a result
gained the right to participate, and became called the popolo (the people). In cities like Venice and
Florence, these systems flourished as the middle ages came to a close, making place for the
Renaissance. However, with the emergence of nation-states, these city-states couldn't defend
themselves and where subjugated by them, thus, nation-states ruled by kings once again eradicated
popular government. City-states became obsolete.
NORTHERN EUROPE
The democratic systems named above missed the crucial characteristics of modern
representative government. They lacked an effective national government. Three basic political
institutions where missing: A national parliament, composed of elected representatives, and popular
chosen local governments that were ultimately subordinate to the national government.
The combination of local and national government originated in Britain, Scandinavia, The
Lowlands (Belgium, the Netherlands), Switzerland and various other northern locations. These started
'bottom-up', beginning at local level, later uniting at regional and national level.
The Vikings started organizing themselves in a 'Ting', assemblies at local level where they
would settle disputes, agree on new laws, appoint kings, change their religion (Christianity) from
600CE to 1000CE. By 900CE these 'Ting' where held all over Scandinavia. The King had to swear
faithfullness to the laws approved by the Ting. Vikings couldn't have known of the democracies a
thousand year earlier, but they were equal. The Freemen though, Vikings also held slaves: enemies
captured in battle or victims of raids.
In the Netherlands and Flanders, rulers needed consent from wealthy citizens to tax their
possessions. The rulers summoned meetings of representatives from the towns and most important
social classes. This established certain traditions, practices and ideas that strongly favoured the
development of popular government.
In Britain, parliament grew out of assemblies summoned periodically. By the eighteenth
century, the king and parliament controlled each other. The House of Lords was in turn controlled by
the House of Commons. Laws enacted had to be interpreted by independent judges. This system of
checks and balances was admired by Europeans and Americans alike. Montesquieu lauded the system,
the founding fathers of the USA based their system on this without the role of a monarch, which in turn
provided a model for many other republics.
Some goals cannot be attained by ourselves. However, by cooperating who share similar aims we
might. Thus, people might form an association to work together in attaining these goals. This
association needs a constitution, which will be written by a member who possesses some skill on the
matter. The contents of this constitution are voted upon democratically, as everyone is equal in the
association. If that person decides to look for examples of consitutions, he would find there are very
differing versions of constitutions. There seems to be no single 'democratic' institution.
The person decides to look for similarities that justifies their claim to being democratic. Are
some perhaps more democratic than others? What does democracy mean? However, the term is used in
a staggering number of ways. He decides to ignore the precedents, because his task is more specific: to
design a set of rules and principles (a constitution) that will determine how the association's decisions
are to be made, under one underlying principle: all members are to be treated as if they were equally
qualified in participating in the process of making decisions about the policies the association will
pursue. All members are to be considered as politically equal.
1. Effective participation. Before a policy is adopted by the association, all the members
must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other
members as to what the policy should be.
2. Voting Equality. When the moment arrives at which the decision aobut policy will
finally be made, every member myst have an equal and effective opportunity to vote,
and all votes must be counted as equal.
3. Enlightened Understanding. Within reasonable limits as to time, each member must
have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant alternative policies
and their likely consequences.
4. Control of the Agenda. Members must have exclusive opportunity to decide how and, if
they choose, what matters are to be placed on the agenda. The democratic process
provided by the above three criteria is never closed. Policies of the association are
always open to change by the members, if they so choose.
5. Inclusion of Adults. Most adult permanent residents should have the full rights of
citizens that are implied by the first four criteria. (p.37-8)
In this chapter, Dahl will refer to democracy as actual forms of government, not the ideal form.
non-democratic regimes have often tried to justify their rule by invoking the ancient and persistant
claim that most people are just not competent to participate in governing a state, implying they need to
leave politics to the wise few (or just one). In one form or another the contest over government by the
one, the few, or the many still exists. Why should we believe democracy is most desirable? (see
summation above).
1. Democracy helps to prevent government by cruel and vicious autocrats. The most
fundamental problem in politics is to avoid autocratic rule, which they would use to serve their own
ends. The costs of despotal rule rival those of disease, famine and war. Examples he names are Stalin
(famine, prison camps), Hitler (WW2, Holocaust), Pol Pot ('self-inflicted' genocide). Popular
governments aren't free of blemishes, and often act unjustly or cruelly toward people outside their
borders. To prevent inflicted harm on persons within their borders, suffrage was extended during the
19th and 20th century, because people were then considered equal.
However, couldn't the majority inflict harm on the minority by what is called the tiranny of the
majority? This is not an easy answer, as every adopted law or policy is bound to inflict harm on some
people. The issue is whether in the long run a democratic process is likely to do less harm to the
fundamental rights and interests of its citizens than any nondemocratic alternative. Because democratic
governments have a better ability of blocking abusive autocratic rule, democracies meet this
requirement better than other forms of government.
2. Democracy guarantees its citizens a number of fundamental rights that nondemocratic
systems do not, and cannot, grant. Democracy is inherently a system of rights, they are the essential
building blocks of a democratic process. To meet certain standards, like effective participation, a citizen
needs the right to participate and a right to express their views. Nondemocratic systems don't offer
these rights, because if they do, they'd become democracies.
A promise of these rights (whether in writing, law or constitution) is not enough, they need to be
effectively enforced and available to citizens. If not, the democracy is merely a facade for
nondemocratic rule (Russia!). If and when many citizens fail to understand that democracy requires
certain fundamental rights or fail to support the institutions that protect those rights, their democracy is
in danger. This danger is reduced by a third benefit.
3. Democracy insures its citizens a broader range of personal freedom than any feasible
alternative to it. A belief in the desirability of democracy does not exist in isolation from other beliefs,
but is part of a cluster. Even if the state is abolished (many anarchist's goal), coercion of some persons
by other persons, groups or associations is likely, robbing the fruits of one's labour and in addition re-
creating a coercive state in order to secure their own domination.
4. Democracy helps people to protect their own fundamental interests. Basic human rights (I.e
survival, shelter, food, etc.) is desired by all. Their order may differ from person to person, and
democracy makes sure you have the opportunity to choose which goals are most important to you. As
J.S. Mill put it: of as universal truth and applicability as any general propositions which can be laid
down respecting human affairs is that the rights and interests of every or any person are secure from
being disregarded when the person is himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them. []
Human beings are only secure from evil at the hands of others in proportion as they have the power of
being, and are, self-protecting.
Dahl agrees; even if included in the electorate, you can't be certain all your interests will be
adequately protected. But if excluded, you know for sure your interests will be harmed by neglect or
outright damage. Inclusion > Exclusion.
5. Only a democratic government can provide a maximum opportunity for persons to exercise the
freedom of self-determination-that is, to live under laws of their own choosing. Living a satisfactory life
can't be without others, but living with others means you can't always do what you like. What you
would like to do conflicts with what others would like to do. Being a member of a group, you have to
adjust to the rules or practices of the group. If you can't impose your wishes by force, you would have
to come to an agreement.
How can you be free to choose the laws of the state, but not be free to disobey them? If
everyone agrees unanimously on laws, there is no need for laws (perhaps to serve as reminder).
However, unanimity is mostly short lived, perfect consensus unattainable. In forming laws in a
democracy, it is possible to make your opinion known. If law is enacted, it is fact.
6. Only a democratic government can provide a maximum opportunity for exercising moral
responsibility. Exercising moral responsibility means adopting your moral principles and make
decisions that depend on these principles only after you have engaged in a thoughtful process of
reflection, deliberation, scrutiny and consideration of alternatives and their consequences. But how can
you be responsible for decisions that you cannot control? If the democratic process maximizes your
opportunity to live under laws of your own choosing then it also enables you to act as a morally
responsible person.
7. Democracy fosters human development more fully than any feasible alternative. This
assertion is highly plausible, but unproven. At birth, people have the potential of living morally
responsible. How much of that is developed depends on many circumstances and among those is the
nature of the political system that person is born under. Nondemocratic systems redus the scope within
which adults can act to protect their own interests, consider those of others, take responsibility for
important decisions and engage freely with others to come to an agreement. Democratic government is
not enough to insure that people develop these qualities, but it is essential.
8. Only a democratic government can foster a relatively high degree of political equality. Why
should we place a value on political equality? The answer is far from self-evident, and Dahl promises
to explain the desirability in the following two chapters and why it follows if we accept several
reasonable assumptions that probably most of do believe in.
9. Modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another. This advantage was
largely unpredicted and unexpected, but evidence is overwhelming. Of 34 wars between 1945 and
1989, none occurred among democratic countries, neither has there been any preparation for one. They
did fight nondemocratic countries, imposed colonial rule and interfered in political life of other
countries (even weakening or overthrowing weak governments). Democratic citizens and leaders learn
the art of compromise. They see people from other democracies as less threatening, more like
themselves, more trustworthy. There is a predisposition to seek peace rather than war.
10. Countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with
nondemocratic governments. Explanation is partly found in the affinity between representative
government and a market economy, where markets are mostly unregulated, workers free to change
jobs, privately owned companies compete for sales and resources, and consumers can choose among
goods and services. All modern democratic governments have market economies and a country with a
market economy is more likely to be prosperous, ergo a modern democratic country is more likely to be
also rich.
Democratic countries foster the education of their people. Rule of law is more strongly
sustained, courts are more independent, property rights are more secure, contractual agreements more
effectively enforced and economic intervention by politicians is less likely. Furthermore, democracies
rely on communication, seeking and exchanging information is easier and less dangerous than in most
nondemocratic regimes. This creates a more hospitable environment in which to achieve the advantages
of market economies and economic growth. However, market economies also mean economic
inequality, which could mean a diminished political equality among the citizens.
Why should the rights necessary to a democratic process of governing be extended equally among
citizens?
We are not necessarily bound to endorse democracy as the best process for governing a state.
UNSETTLED PROBLEMS
Rejecting guardianship and adopting political equality as an ideal still leaves some difficult
questions. Don't citizens and government officials need help from experts? Yes they do. Their
specialized knowledge is undeniably important for the funtioning of democratic governments. Public
policy is often complex that no government could make satisfactory decisions without help from
experts.
If citizens are to be competent, won't they need political and social institutions to help make
them so? Yes, opportunities to gain enlightened understanding of public matters are a requirement of
democracy. The majority of citizens might still make mistakes, which is why advocates of democracy
stress the importance of education.
What if the institutions for developing competent citizens are weak, and they don't know
enough to protect their own values and interests? We have adopted intrinsic equality, which we applied
to the government of state. We rejected Guardianship, but accepted full inclusion. Therefore, if the
institutions for civic education are weak, only one solution remains: they must be strengthened. Perhaps
the institutions created in the 19th and 20th century are nog longer adequate. If so, we need to create new
ones to supplement the old ones.
Main question of this chapter: what does it mean to say that a country is governed democratically? A
few thing to keep in mind: this means large-scale democracies (not committees), every actual
democracy has fallen short of the criteria described in part II, and finally we should be aware that in
ordinary language we use the word 'democracy' to refer both to a goal or ideal and to an actuality that is
only a partial attainment of the goal.
Just as we need strategies for bringing about a transition to democracy in nondemocratic countries and
for consolidating democratic institutions in newly democratized countries, so in the older democratic
countries we need to consider whether and how to move beyond our existing level of democracy.
Do differences in constitutions matter? No, yes, and maybe. Dahl will focus in this chapter on the
constitutional experience of older democracies (eds: i.e. mostly western countries, except Costa Rica).
Variations among them are sufficient to provide an idea of the range of possibilities. However,
constitutional arrangements of new democracies aren't less important, they are crucial in the succes of
democratization.
CONSTITUTIONAL VARIATIONS
Dahl distinguishes between written and unwritten. An unwritten constitution is a result of a
highly unusual historical circumstances in GB, New Zealand and Israel. Written constitutions have
become standard. A Bill of Rights is not universal, but is now common practice. Social and Economic
rights is uncommon in older democracies, however in newer democracies (since WW2) they are
included.
Some states are federal, other unitary. Federal states are the result of special historic
circumstances. Unicameral or Bicameral legislature. Typically dominated by bicameralism, however,
Israel never had a second chamber, and the Scandinavian countries have abolished their upper houses.
Judicial Review refers to the practice of a supreme court reviewing national legislature on
constitutional grounds. Can judges rule laws enacted by national parliament unconstitutional? This is
not the case in half the democratic countries.
Tenure of judges for life or limited term? In the US, judges have life tenure. Advantage being
that it ensures greater independence from political pressures. However, their judgements may reflect
older ideologies, employing judicial review to impede reforms. Most countries have limited tenure
since WW2.
Referenda? More than half of the countries have had at least one, however, the US has not.
Switzerland has the most frequent. Presidential or Parliamentary? In a presidential system, chief
executive is elected independently of the legislature. Classic example: US. Other end of the spectrum
(parliamentary): GB. Presidential system invented by the US, in admiration of GB's separation of
powers. Instead of a monarch, they opted for citizens to rule. Electoral system? How precise are seats
allocated in national legislature in proportion to preferences of voters? If a party gets 30% of the votes,
will it get 30% of the seats?
Are some of these variations better, making a democracy more democratic? How are we to
appraise the relative desirability of different constitutions? We need some criteria...
A political landscape is mostly shaped by its electoral system and political parties, and they exist in a
wide variety.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
No electoral system can satisfy all criteria, which is why they differ so much. There are trade-
offs. Proportional Representation (PR) are designed to send an equal amount of politicians in relation
to % of votes to a chamber. In First-past-the-post (FPTP) a single candidate is chosen from each
district, which could result in 60% of seats for a certain party, while it only has 50% of votes. This
because party support might not be spread evenly across a country. FPTP relies on an uneven spread, if
20% of the people evenly spread across a country support a certain party, it wouldn't get any seats if
another parties has 30%. If regional differences decline, the distortion grows.
This FPTP system is not abolished, partly due to tradition. In order of fairness to minorities,
judges sometimes draw districts (=gerrymandering) so they can get represented by one of their own,
forming a majority (eds: Compton yo). There remains a lot of hostility towards PR in the US.
The tendency of FPTP to amplify legislative majority of the winning party has two desirable
consequences. It handicaps third parties, producing a two party system. This places less of a burden on
citizens by simplifying the vote. PR advocates would say it impairs freedom of choice. It also makes
sure there's an effective government because of the amplification of the winning party, making it harder
for losers to form a potent coalition. PR has produced so many conflicting parties, majority coalitions
are mostly unstable and difficult to form.
We face two questions: How can we account for the establishement of democratic institutions in so
many countries in so many parts of the world, and how can we explain its failure? A full answer is
impossible, two interrelated sets of factors are undoubtedly of crucial importance.
FOREIGN INTERVENTION
democratic institutions are less likely to develop in a country subject to intervention by another
country hostile to democratic government in that country. For instance, Soviet intervention prevented
Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary to gain democracy despite favourable conditions. Pre-existing,
dating far back before WW2. The US, as well, has a history of intervening in Latin America,
overthrowing democratically elected governments to protect their economic interests in the region, for
instance in Guatamala in 1954. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US started supporting
development of democratic institutions in eastern Europe.
SOME QUALIFICATIONS
Economic growth is however not unique to democratic countries, however, there seems to be
correlation between the two. Central planning has only been efficiently managed as wartime
governments, like GB and US in WWI and II, in which cases the allocation of resources had a clear
goal and were widely supported by its citizens.
3. Democracy and market-capitalism are locked in a persistant conflict in which each modifies and
limits the other. Market-capitalism in Britain by 1840 had not only won in economic theory, but also in
politics, laws, ideas, philosophy and ideology. However, where people have a voice, a complete victory
cannot endure. It brought gains for some, but harm to others. Due to the extention of suffrage, by 1887
every male could vote (in GB). People who got harmed by market-capitalism sought protection from
political leaders, and opponents of laissez-faire grew by focussing on the plight of the working classes.
Market-capitalism without government regulation was impossible in a democratic country for two
reasons.
First, the basic institutions of market-capitalism themselves require extensive government
intervention and regulation. Competitive markets, ownership of economic entitites, enforcing contracts,
preventing monopolies, etc., depend on laws, policies, orders and other government action. Second,
without government intervention and regulation a market economy inevitably inflicts harm on some
persons and they will demand government intervention. Economic actors give little meaning to 'the
greater good', rather ignoring it for self gain. However, if some get harmed, others see gains to their
benefits. How are we to judge what is desirable?
These are not just economic questions, but also moral and political. Citizens searching for
answers will inevitably gravitate towards the easiest accessible candidate for intervening, the
government of state. The outcome of this intervention depends on the relative political strength of the
antagonists (eds: corporations).
Dahl thinks the future is too uncertain to provide firm answers as to what lies ahead. However, he
believes that certain problems democratic countries now face will remain or even intensify. In this
chapter, he'll provide a brief sketch of several challenges facing democracy. He'll stick to older
democracies, because he believes newer democracies will eventually face the same challenges.
CHALLENGE 2: INTERNATIONALIZATION
Internationalization is likely to expand the domain of decisions made by political and
bureaucratic elites at the expense of democratic controls. The challenge posed is to make sure that the
costs to democracy are fully taken into account when decision-making is shifted to international levels
and to strengthen accountability. Whether and how to accomplish this is far from clear, according to
Dahl.
If the older democracies confront and overcome their challenges in the 21 st century, they might just
transform themselves, at long last, into truly advanced democracies. The succes of the advanced
democracies would then provide a beacon for all, throughout the world, who believe in democracy.