Democratic Theory Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example Democratic Theory Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

The field of democratic theory can be divided into two subfields: descriptive and normative theory. The role of descriptive democratic theory is to characterize and study certain features of political systems that are considered democratic. Normative democratic theory focuses less directly on describing existing institutions and systems and instead inquires into the moral basis for democracy as a method of political decision making and governance. While this essay will focus primarily on normative aspects of democratic theory, descriptive theory must also play a significant role if one takes a democratic system to be normatively desirable only if it is in some significant way feasible.

Theorists do not agree about what they mean when they invoke the term democracy. A working definition is that it is a process of decision making in which all participants enjoy equal standing in some form. The etymology of the word democracy is simple enough; it is derived from the Greek term δημοκρατία (de-mokratía), which translates as “popular power.”

However there is much contention among democratic theorists over what such a power amounts to. For some democratic theorists, like Joseph Schumpeter, democratic power means minimally that rulers are selected through a competitive electoral procedure. For others, like Carole Pateman, democracy demands not only democratic political institutions but also a civil society based on participation, equality, and liberty. The role of democratic theory is less to resolve definitional disputes and more to ascertain whether there is a form of democratic governance that is legitimate and morally desirable given existing political conditions.

Major Themes

Among the central themes of democratic theory, the first is democratic legitimacy. Since it is rare that a political decision is reached unanimously, democratic theory must account for how collective decisions can be legitimately author itative and have coercive power over dissenting participants. There is also the general project of justification of democracy: Why is democracy a better form of government than others? Theorists provide both instrumental and intrinsic arguments in answering this question. Instrumental arguments, like that of John Stuart Mill, point out that democracy brings about good political outcomes such as just social or economic conditions as well as a more tolerant, informed, and engaged citizenry. Amartya Sen invokes an instrumental justification of democracy when he argues that famine has never occurred in a democratic state with a relatively free press. David Estlund has argued that democracies have epistemic advantage over other forms of government, since democratic procedures that involve many have a tendency to produce good political decisions, which are more legitimate than the decisions of the expert few. To supplement the instrumental benefits that democracy offers, there are intrinsic justifications as well. Many theorists such as Joshua Cohen and Jeremy Waldron have argued that given the pluralistic nature of modern societies, democratic decision-making procedures are the fairest way to achieve some form of agreement among conflicting factions.

Even when theorists agree about the moral underpinnings of democracy, controversies remain over the contours of the ideal form of the democratic process. For instance, there are many questions surrounding democratic representation: Most notably, Is the form of government a direct democracy where every person directly engages in the collective decision making, or should the citizens be represented by intermediary political actors? Jean-Jacques Rousseau forcefully argues that a direct democracy is integral to producing well-informed and engaged citizens, though such a system is unlikely to be a practicable solution to the concerns of large and complex modern political societies, which characteristically demand a substantive division of labor in governance. If representative democracies strike the right balance of practicality and normativity, then a further question must be considered as to the proper role of political representatives; James Madison argued that representatives should act as delegates and simply follow the directives of their constituents. In contrast, Edmund Burke believed that representatives are the trustees of the will of the people and should act on their own judgment about matters of justice.

Historical Critics

Normative democratic theory need not be an affirmative project; those who are engaged in the discipline may be critical of its feasibility or normative advantage. Many criticisms of democracy are instrumental arguments; in some way or other—perhaps because of human fallibility, or the structure of the democratic process itself—democracy does not produce just outcomes. Both Plato and Aristotle argue that democracy—as Plato defines it ,“the rule by the governed”—was a less favorable form of government than monarchy (rule by an individual) or oligarchy (rule by the elite class). Plato believed that democracy tended to conflate expertise in governance with expertise in winning elections. In order to win elections, statesmen must appeal to the base beliefs of their constituents rather than pursue legislation that promotes justice and the common good. Hence Plato worried that democratic systems reward those who are talented at winning the favor of the public and disadvantage those who have the temperament and judgment to govern properly.

Thomas Hobbes likewise believed democracy to be an inferior form of government, because it encourages dissention and instability among citizens. According to Hobbes, a monarchy furthers the common good, since the monarch’s private and public interests are entangled, forcing political decisions by the monarch to track the interests of all subjects. Hobbes could be understood as criticizing democracies for cultivating subjects and politicians whose private interests cannot be integrated with the common good. Anthony Downs and other contemporary public-choice theorists echo both Plato’s and Hobbes’s criticisms, arguing that citizens are not adequately informed about political matters and are too often motivated by their own private interests to appropriately engage in collective decision making.

Contemporary Strands

Contemporary democratic theories continue engaging in the historical debates of the discipline and can be grouped into three major strands: procedural, substantive, and deliberative democratic theories. Procedural (or minimal) theorists, such as Dahl, Schumpeter, and Waldron, focus primarily on the democratic processes themselves rather than on the fairness of their outcomes or the development of citizen’s preferences that are inputs into the decision-making procedure. Substantive theorists, such as Pateman, argue that while democratic procedures are an important component to bringing about just results, they are not sufficient and must be supplemented with, among other things, institutionally guaranteed rights. Deliberative democrats, such as Gutmann, Thompson, and Cohen, concentrate on the individual preferences of citizens and contend that deliberative procedures foster the development of appropriate and public-minded participants.

Bibliography:

Christiano,Tom. The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
Cohen, Joshua. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Philosophy and Democracy, edited by Tom Christiano. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Dahl, Robert. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.
Estlund, David. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited by C. B. Macpherson. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1968.
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers, edited by Isaac Kramnick. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1987.
Mill, John Stuart. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In On Liberty and Other Essays, edited by John Gray. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
The Republic, translated by Desmond Lee. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1974.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, translated by Maurice Cranston. London: Penguin Books, 1968.
Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999.
Waldron, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.