Analyze

900l e!UJO:J.!le) 'pJo:J.ue+s ssaJd A+!sJaA!un pJo:J.ue+s

G13:H GIAVG

cBride has been ton. He has guided ;t) and has been a Ann Bone, Neil de 'Connor, Sue Pope le process of the

the third edition is eat supporter and

evious editions, for oolis and for being ob.

DH

(

Introduction

The history of the idea of democracy is curious; the history of democracies is puzzling. .

There are two striking historical facts . First, political leaders of extraordinarily diverse views profess to be democrats. Political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies. Yet what these regimes say and do is often substantially different from one to another throughout the world. Democracy appears to legitimate modern political life: rule-making and law enforcement seem justified and appropriate when they are ' democratic'. But it has not always been so . From ancient Greece to the present day the majority of political thinkers have been highly critical of the theory and practice of democracy. A general commitment to democracy is a very recent phenomenon. -

Second, while many states today may be democratic, the history of their political institutions reveals the fragility and vulnerability of democratic arrangements. The history of twentieth-century Europe alone makes clear that democracy is a remarkably difficult form of government to create and sustain: fascism , Nazism and Stalinism came very close to eradicating it altogether. Democracy has evolved through intensive social struggles and is frequently sacrificed in such struggles. This book is about the idea of democracy, but in exploring the idea we cannot escape too far from aspects of its history in thought and practice.

While the word 'democracy' came into English in the sixteenth century from the French democratie, its origins are Greek. 'Democracy' is derived from demokratia, the root meanings of which are demos (people) and kratos (rule). Democracy means a form of government in which, in contradistinction to monarchies and aristocracies, the people rule. Democracy entails a political community in which there is some form of political equality among the people. 'Rule by the people ' may appear an unambiguous concept, but appearances are deceptive. The history of the idea of democracy is complex and is marked by conflicting conceptions. There is plenty of scope for disagreement.

Definitional problems emerge with each element of the phrase: 'rule'? - 'rule by'? - 'the people'? To begin with 'the people':

• Who are to be considered 'the people'? • What kind of participation is envisaged for them? • What conditions are assumed to be conducive to participation? Can

the disincentives and incentives, or costs and benefits, of participation be equal?

~

(

2 Introduction

The idea of 'rule' evokes a plethora of issues:

• How broadly or narrowly is the scope of rule to be construed? Or, what is the appropriate field of democratic activity?

• If 'rule' is to cover 'the political' what is meant by this? Does it cover: (a) law and order? (b) relations between states? (c) the economy? (d) the domestic or private sphere?

Does 'rule by' entail the obligation to obey?

• Must the rules of 'the people' be obeyed? What is the place of obligation and dissent?

• What roles are permitted for those who are avowedly and actively 'non- participants'?

• Under what circumstances, if any, are democracies entitled to resort to coercion against some of their own people or against those outside the sphere of legitimate rule?

The potential areas for disagreement do not stop here. For, from ancient Greece to the contemporary world, there have also been fundamentally different opinions expressed about the general conditions or prerequisites of successful 'rule by the people'. Do the people have, for instance, to be literate before becoming democrats? Is a certain level of social wealth necessary for the main- tenance of a democracy? Can democracies be maintained during times of national emergency or war? These and a host of other issues have ensured that the meaning of democracy has remained, and probably always will remain, unsettled.

There is much significant history in the attempt to restrict the meaning of 'the people' to certain groups: among others, owners of property, white men, educated men, men, those with particular skills and occupations, white adults, adults. There is also a telling story in the various conceptions and debates about what is to count as 'rule' by 'the people'. The range of possible positions includes, as one commentator usefully summarized them:

1 That all should govern, in the sense that all should be involved in legislating, in deciding on general policy, in applying laws and in governmental administration.

2 That all should be personally involved in crucial decision-making, that is to say, in deciding general laws and matters of general policy.

3 That rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they should, in other words, be obliged to justify their actions to the ruled and be removable by the ruled.

4 That rulers should be accountable to the representatives of the ruled. 5 That rulers should be chosen by the ruled. 6 That rulers should be chosen by the representatives of the ruled. 7 That rulers should act in the interests of the ruled. (Lively, 1975, p. 30)

Positions taken deriv~ in part from different ways of justifying democracy. Democracy has been defended on the grounds that it comes closest among the alternatives to achieving one or more of the following fundamental values or goods: rightful authority, political equality, liberty, moral self-development, the common interest, a fair moral compromise, binding decisions that take

everyone's interest inti efficient decisions. Wi to determine whether < form of life in which regulation) or an aid to c those voted into power· the scope of democra alternatively, should important ends?

These are extreme democracy, the chief t help to illuminate whyl focusing on the chief v options we face today. themselves in a simple1 confusing, partly beca because the issues a important to say also all such accounts, by a democratic ideas and hold on our political, s' precise nature of this v· clarified later, but it do democratic theorists

The book is divided · democracy: the classic conception of a self, protective and develo1 elaborated in two diffe democracy); and the M five more recent mode conflict: competitive ell democracy and deliber problems of democrati should democracy m appraisal of the conte context of the nation-st; of dense interconnecti

Thus, the concerns conceptions of democ the slow re-emergence and, from the late sixt, tyranny and the absol the late eighteenth anc

1 It is important to note ttl 2 and 3 explore the leading

construed? Or, what is the

this? Does it cover: (a) law tiomy? (d) the domestic or

;le place of obligation and

wedly and actively 'non-

:ies entitled to resort to t those outside the sphere

here. For, from ancient tl fundamentally different 1rerequisites of successful ice, to be literate before 1 necessary for the main- 11tained during times of issues have ensured that 11.bly always will remain,

strict the meaning of 'the 1f property, white men, ccupations, white adults, >tions and debates about ~e of possible positions ~m:

involved in legislating, and in governmental

lion-making, that is to >!icy. hould, in other words, :movable by the ruled. es of the ruled. _,, the ruled. ely, 1975, p. 30)

f justifying democracy. Imes closest among the fundamentaJ values or ~self-development, the g decisions that take

Introduction 3

everyone's interest into account, social utility, the satisfaction of wants, efficient decisions. Within the history of the clash of positions lies the struggle to determine whether democracy will mean some kind of popular power (a form of life in which citizens are engaged in self-government and self- regulation) or an aid to decision-making (a means to legitimate the decisions of those voted into power- 'representatives' - from time to time). What should be the scope of democracy? To what domains of life should it be applied? Or, alternatively, should democracy be clearly delimited to maintain other important ends?

These are extremely difficult questions. Analysis of the variants of democracy, the chief task of this book, does not resolve them, although it may help to illuminate why certain positions are more attractive than others. In focusing on the chief variants, this volume will set out some of the political options we face today. But it is as well to say that these options do not present themselves in a simple, clear-cut manner. The history of democracy is often confusing, partly because this is still very much an active history, and partly because the issues are very complex (R. Williams, 1976, pp. 82-7). It is important to say also that my account of the myriad of issues is helped, as are all such accounts, by a particular position within this active history: a belief that democratic ideas and practices can in the long run be protected only if their hold on our political, social and economic life is extended and deepened. The precise nature of this view and the reasons I have for holding it will, I hope, be clarified later, but it does mean that I am inevitably more sympathetic to some democratic theorists than others.

The book is divided into three parts. Part One sets out four classic models of democracy: the classical idea of democracy in ancient Athens; the republican conception of a self-governing community (elaborated in two variants: protective and developmental republicanism);' liberal democracy (again, elaborated in two different variants: protective democracy and developmental democracy); and the Marxist conception of direct democracy. Part Two explores five more recent models that have spawned intensive political discussion and conflict: competitive elitist democracy, pluralism, legal democracy, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Part Three examines some of the central problems of democratic theory and practice, and addresses the question: what should democracy mean today? This question is pursued by means of an appraisal of the contemporary relevance of the democratic heritage within the context of the nation-state as well as against the background of the development of dense interconnections among states and societies.

Thus, the concerns of Models of Democracy span some of the earliest conceptions of democracy, the eclipse of these ideas for nearly two millerinia, the slow re-emergence of democratic notions in the course of the Renaissance and, from the late sixteenth century, during the struggle of liberalism against tyranny and the absolutist state, the reformulation of the idea of democracy in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in both the liberal and Marxist

1 It is important to note that not all conceptions of republicanism were democratic. Chapters 2 and 3 explore the leading conceptions and their relation to democracy.