On Democracy: Breht's Paper for Class

I got a good response to the short essay I posted yesterday, so here's another one from the same class. This one is about the political philosopher Robert Dahl's criteria for a real democracy. He is certainly no marxist, but def has some worthwhile and progressive ideas. I also think its important for us to think about a functioning post-revolution society beyond the vanguard party, democratic centralism, and the more defensive forms of governance that state socialism has had to take historically in order to withstand the multi-faceted pressures of counter-revolution and imperialism on their systems. We are not opposed to democracy, to the contrary, we ultimately want to expand it to new heights never before seen (and certainly many aspects of state socialism did experiment with this stuff and made real democratic advancements). Dahl thinks through this stuff rigorously and also advocates for economic democracy which is a core aspect of any Marxist conception of democracy as well and runs counter to how liberals conceive of democracy in which objectively does NOT include any commitment to democracy in the workplace or in the economy at large!

1)       Identify Dahl's criteria for a successful democracy and explain why each is important.

Robert Dahl was a well-known and respected American political theorist who wrote many works focused largely on the concept of democracy. Interestingly, Dahl was a critic of both libertarian capitalism and state socialism, arguing for a sort of democratic socialism rooted in economic democracy. A core concept to his work was the idea of “polyarchy” which can be seen a type of democracy but which is positioned as something different than democracy per se. This can be somewhat semantic, but overall Dahl believed that democracy proper was an ideal system that was totally and completely responsive to all of its citizens. This ideal has never existed in reality, and might be impossible to achieve in practice. Instead, Dahl advanced “polyarchy” which is perhaps somewhere in between a representative republic and the ideal of a democracy; in any case it is certainly and profoundly democratic, and for our purposes we can understand it as a form of democracy. Since “poly” means “many”, the idea of “polyarchy” is rule by the many, but funneled through groups, institutions, leaders, and procedures. After we discuss the essential elements of this form of democracy, we will reflect on whether the modern American political system meets these standards.

According to Dahl, in order to meet the criteria for a successful democracy a handful of elements must be present. These include effective participation, equal voting power, reliable access to good information (aka “Enlightened Understanding”), the ability to set the agenda for government, and inclusive citizenship. In addition to these criteria, Dahl lays out seven “institutions of Polyarchy” (pg. 221) which include elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, the right to run for office, freedom of expression, access to alternative information, and associational autonomy. Beyond these criteria in the book of his we read for class, he has other various conditions in society that favor his form of democracy (a democratic culture, civilian control of the military and police, etc.). Focusing on the content we read for class, however, we can see how his main criteria for democracy in combination with his seven essential institutions form the basis of his conception of practical democracy.[1]

Regarding their importance, effective participation is essential because it allows all members of society to participate in the political process and advance their ideas and interests, ensuring nobody is left out, alienated, subordinated, or reduced to second class status. Equal voting power ensures every adult citizen gets to cast a vote freely and without coercion or concern about whether or not his vote will be counted. Enlightened understanding is one my favorite criteria because its often overlooked: if citizens only have access to limited points of view, or media that is either dominated by for-profit corporations or by the state, then they cannot reliably be well-informed enough to make important democratic decisions. This element is often overlooked in modern political discourse, but Ill return to this point later. Next up is control of the agenda, which ensures regular citizens get to decide what issues are prioritized for discussion and action. If this criterion does not exist, government can begin to lose its responsiveness to the actual needs of the people, and this can undermine democracy by undermining the faith people have that their system is geared toward actually meeting their needs as citizens and hasn’t been co-opted by other forces. It also allows a wide array of issues and interests to be considered. Finally, we have the principle of inclusive citizenship, wherein all adult citizens can participate in the democratic process which is not merely voting, but also includes their right to run for office, advance their interests, and have their needs or interests put on the agenda.

Finally, we shall briefly see if the United States meets these criteria today. On the first point of effective participation, I think we can say that most Americans do have the freedom to speak their minds, advance their ideas, and participate in the political process in various ways. On the second criteria of equal voting power, although it is often contested and made into an issue by partisan forces, and while there are certainly attempts to diminish this right with gerrymandering, long voting lines, making food and drink illegal to hand out to those waiting in long lines (Georgia), etc., I think most reliable data shows that eligible Americans do have an equal right to go to their local polling location and cast a ballot however they want to, and that ballot will be counted. The electoral college complicates this picture a bit to be sure, but doesn’t totally undermine the basic right. When it comes to “enlightened understanding” I do think we begin to come up against some issues. First you have corporate media which, in a society where the rich and corporate interests have bought and paid for large chunks of the political process and of politicians themselves, the corporate media can and often does become synonymous with state media, in that media outlets like CNN or the NYT will often regurgitate whatever the state department tells them, and outlets like FOX pumps out ideological propaganda meant to protect the interests of the rich while scapegoating the powerless for the faults of the elite. We see slanted and distorted coverage of the Israeli war against Palestinians, for a contemporary example. Overall entrenched, for-profit corporate media very much has a “status quo” bias at least, as these outlets are run by people and companies who have a vested interest in the very status quo that elevated them to the status of elites in the first place. The rise of social media and alternative media is promising, and does hedge against this deficit in meaningful ways, but can at the same time just as easily play into wild conspiracies, propaganda, the hands of monied interests, etc. All in all, this one is complicated, and unfortunately unless you are very media literate, have solid critical thinking skills, and actively seek out a wide range of information, you are at a significant disadvantage as a regular citizen operating in the Amerian media landscape. When it comes to control of the agenda, I would argue the United States does not meet this criterion. Most Americans are against endless war, most support robust policies of universal healthcare, getting money out of politics, affordable housing, a raise in the minimum wage, and a host of other policies that benefit regular working Americans instead of the already rich, powerful, and influential. While these policies can sometimes be promised during campaigns, once elected politicians rarely center these concerns, opting to center the concerns of their respective donor classes instead. Mix this corruption with a mainstream media apparatus meant to manufacture consent for the interests of the rich and of empire, and the United States fails to meet these previous two criteria in a meaningful way. Finally, inclusive citizenship, when we set aside those who are not here legally, is probably met by the current US political system, but with severe limitations put on it by the failure to meet all the other criteria as described above.

Overall, I think Dahl’s criteria for a successful democratic society are insightful, useful, and worth pursuing. It is beyond doubt that any society that robustly meets all these criteria can be counted as a democratic and reasonably just society. In order for America to meet this criteria it would need, at least, a well-regulated media landscape that has journalistic integrity, is not susceptible to the influences of profiteering or the state, and whose sole aim is to inform the American people as objectively and expansively as possible about the real state of the world, while equipping them through the educational system with the capacity for critical thinking. It would also need to get money out of politics completely, overturn Citizens United, publicly finance all campaigns, allow for more parties to actively participate in elections, allow for things like rank-choice voting, and create a class of political leaders whose only path to power is through the informed consent of the regular citizens that they represent - not monied interests, not corrupt lobbying groups, and not donor classes or PACs. Only in that context is real democracy, or “polyarchy”, truly possible. I hope we obtain it one day.

[1] Dahl, Robert. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press, 1989.