In a recent paper in the Journal of Democracy, Adam Przeworski asks "Who decides what is democratic?" As someone who has spent many years pondering the nature and requirements of self-government, perhaps I may be excused for having the initial inclination to answer, "Hey, I'll do it!" But, in reality, this is a trick question–even though it’s not clear that Przeworski has entirely understood this himself. For whether a polity, the assumption of governmental power by an official, or the enactment of some policy is democratic (or has been democraticaly accomplished) requires that a crucial distinction be made–and it isn’t quite the distinction between “maximalist” and “minimalist” democracy that he outlines in this paper. The more basic ambiguity is between (i) The consensus regarding whether the polity (or promotion or enactment) has characteristics sufficient for its classification as “basically democratic” among ranking organizations, media outlets, NGOs, scholars, etc. around the world; and (ii) A determination of whether the polity, promotion or enactment is consistent with all the principles required for authentic self-government.
It should be clear that (i) and (ii) need not always have the same answer. For example, it is commonly said these days that Americans are now in danger of “losing their democracy,” and, of course, the U.S. was generally deemed a democracy before blacks or women were allowed to vote. So, it should be obvious that assessments of that type involve type (i) only. What I mean is that most of us will now agree that before universal adult suffrage, the U.S. was not authentically democratic; and I hope many will agree with me that, with its Electoral College, Senate, gerrymandered districts, Filibuster rule, etc. it has always been and remains a considerable distance from meeting the criteria for legitimate self-government. [This matter is discussed in substantial detail in my book, as well as in a critique of epistemic democracy that is forthcoming in the journal Prolegomena. Indeed, regular readers of this blog are bound to know that this is something of an obsession with me.] Nevertheless, I can concede that some U.S. elections and the passages of some state laws--(maybe only in Nebraska!) may have been democratically produced, even pursuant to (ii).
Przeworski seems to me to have been right to distinguish outcomes from procedures in his paper. However, while such demarcation is essential to his minimal/maximal distinction, it ought to be seen to have nothing much to do with answering either of what I claim to be the more basic questions involving (i) and (ii). I suspect he would go quite as far as I do on that matter, but he does believe that violating “norms of universalism, equality, or freedom which many see as essential to democracy” can happen pursuant to apparently democratic procedures.
In my view, figuring out precisely what authentic democracy requires is key here: some disturbing outcomes may be democratic, others cannot be, regardless of the apparent purity of the procedures utilized. But answers aren't necessarily a matter of the outcomes in any case: the procedures themselves are disqualified if, e.g., political speech or association rights haven't been guaranteed in advance.
With respect to the strictly procedural aspects, Przeworski makes “judges” the guardians. That seems confused to me, since courts should be expected to follow/interpret the basic laws of their jurisdictions, and there is no reason to suppose that these must be consistent with the characteristics required pursuant to either (i) or (ii). On the other hand, I believe that he is right when he says that democracy is “just a terrain on which somewhat equal and somewhat free people struggle for the realization of conflicting ideals, values, and interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment