Models of Democracy

Protective Democracy


Democracy being seen as a device by which citizens could protect themselves from an over-mighty government to bring about the widest realm of individual liberty. The consent of government is exercised through voting in regular and competitive elections. This is guaranteed by constitutionalism, pressure groups, impersonal and limited range of state power
TWO FORMS
Maddison – Man is acquisitive / vindictive. Mankind needs protection from itself. Elections will filter talent, wisdom and morality into government
Surely it would merely produce a microcosm of the macrocosm?
Mill – The protection of mans rights requires limited but representative government
Mill was partly a protective democrat but he starts from the premise that we are perfectabele and need elites initially
Developmental Democracy


Rousseau
Unanimous consent to the social contract
Laws are made directly by the sovereign people
The subordinate executive is best constrained by representation
Only sovereign people can dissolve state
Movement toward enlightened self interested
Moral Transformation of Man
Mill
PR system allows a chance to the best candidates
Intellectual development – compatible with a minimal state – through participation in political life. **Allowing the expansion of individual capacities
Constitutional checks to ensure promotion of individual rights
Separation of functions – elected and specialist
Citizen involvement in different branches of government.
Classical Democracy


Citizens should enjoy political equality in order that they be free to rule and be ruled
Direct participation in legislative and judicial functions
Assembly of citizens have sovereign power
No different privileges to differentiate ordinary citizens and public officials
Not practical in modern world
People’s Democracy


The free development of all can only be achieved with the free development of each. Complete economic and political equality; this ensures we can each give according to his ability to received what they need.
The public power will lose its political character
Public affairs governed collectively
Self-regulation of government and politics
Classless society – no markets, private property etc.
One party to advocate the REAL WILL of the people – monist.
Pluralism


Madison straddles the distinction between elitist and pluralist democracy. He believes the causes of faction (interest groups) are inherent in man and people of a certain ‘ilk’ be that religious, political etc will always come together.
The regulation of these interests is the principle task of modern government. These groups will be necessary in the ordinary operations of government.
In contrast to atomistic and monist concepts of society pluralism is taking a different approach
Selfish but rational individuals combine into groups to pursue a common goal. These may be PG or PP.
Democratic theory is about how ordinary people control leaders – regular elections between parties with overlapping pressure groups
POLYARCHY
Diverse minorities who will influence the outcome of elections. These groups are not elitist.
A COMPETITIVE EQUALIBRIUM is achieved
A pluralist society has to be arbitration by government between groups and many access points into the political system
Pluralism is designed to act as a force by which political liberty can be ensured and that the state is responsive.
There MUST be checks and balances in the system in order for this to occur – otherwise they could be ignored.
This model can be crticised about why pressure groups and such are bad for democracy from AS notes. It can also be criticised if you take an atomistic or monist view of society.




Elitism


Filtration
In relation to protective democracy. We choose people of more wisdom and experience within a huge constituency for an election – the most virtuous will be filtered out.
The filtration will be refined by successive filtrations
Inevitable
Michels proposal on the ‘iron law of oligarchy’
‘It is the organisation which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors….he who says organisations says oligarchy’
All organisations are inevitably elitist
Marxist elitism
Views it as undesirable but inevitable as it is a stage in history
Plato’s Guardians
The view that an elite core is best placed to serve the community and the well-being of everyone in it. Democracy would not produce this.
Competitive Elitism


The extension of the franchise has meant that parliament has been bypassed as the forum for rational decision making. The decisions are no longer take from the golden age of the backbencher
Modern parties mobilise votes by bribes – these are policies offered.
The career politician who are an elite core who can ‘manage’ the electorate
This model assumes that the electorate are not passive but emotional, which means they are easily swayed.
Example – NHS / Immigration scare tactics
The modern reality of the democratic method is that individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote
Political Theory about how democrat ought to be is dead – all western democracies are merely a competitive struggle for votes.
Competitive democracy is a method of selecting skilled elite capable of making decisions
It requires parliamentary government with a strong executive
Rival elites and parties
Constitutional limits on political power




Can elitism be reconciled with any form of democracy? The elitist is able to justify the hierarchical order of things but how can the democrat who believes in the ‘equality of man’?




Does a competitive elitist democracy not merely lead to apathy and alienation as the public is only ever able to elect another elite after 4-5years, participation is low?




Can competitive elitism in terms of parties by reconciled with pluralistic society of interest groups who may be able to influence those parties – possibly this avoids the above criticism.




Corporatism


Triangle of association between Trade Unions, Business and The State
Super-pluralist groups which are vast federation of sectional interest groups.
The idea is to fix the economy, a social compact which was an annual agreement between the three strands
Insufficient variety of groups
State as dominant – can get TUC and CBI to discipline members
Bypassing democratic processes
Only economic aspects
Strangling serpents on the economy
This may be linked to developmental democracy…
New Right


Lassiez-Faire economics
Not concerned with groups in the slightest
ONLY COMPETITIVE INDIVIDUALS
The use of the state as an organ of economic policy
Linked to protective democracy
Marxist


Common will and monist view of society
Groups are instruments of capitalism
Corporatism is a ‘tactic’ to destroy the compact
Linked with people’s democracy


Read more...