Following both the Chavez trial and readings last week I
noticed the concept of ‘Radical Democracy’ being thrown around a lot, yet I had
little idea what it actually meant. This post will briefly try to explain the essence
of ‘Radical Democracy’ and subsequently give a better understanding of those
who argue that Venezuela is a democratic nation.
What is Radical Democracy?
Radical Democracy stems from the belief that while competitive
representation, such as elections, are necessary to organise a democratic state,
a fuller realisation of democratic values through other measures.
The first of these measures is the radical democrat’s belief
that there should be broader participation in public decision making. Rather
than public choices being made by the elected government of the day, emphasis
is placed on citizens having direct roles in these choices and being able to
directly voice concerns to officials. Evidence of this occurring in Venezuela
is pointed out in the Ellner reading.
Secondly, radical democrats place a great deal of importance
upon the role of deliberation in the political process. The role of citizens
addressing public problems through deliberation, and eventually finding the
best course of action, is stressed. This attempts to remove politics of self
interest and bargaining from the political sphere – an argument to do something
that benefits simply yourself is unlikely to be carried out after deliberation.
A step towards democracy?
With the association of Republican presidential candidates
and the so called super
PACs, the idea of whether competitive representation by itself is truly
democratic has come under scrutiny. Is radical democracy a solution to
providing more democratic outcomes? Or would we just be replacing wealthy
candidate backers with vocal ones, while the silent remain ignored? And
finally, should Radical Democracy (or the absence of) be taken into
consideration when classifying regimes? Thoughts?
Reference: http://www.archonfung.com/docs/articles/2004/Cohen_Fung_Debate_SPSR2004.pdf
There is a question here about whether the institutions in Venezuela only give the illusion of participation - power is, after all, highly centralized.
ReplyDeleteRadical democracy to me, reminds me of the first past the post system, that currently goes on in the USA and UK. This is simply because when people vote for their state governer, all the votes go to one person, even if you voted for the opposition. I know that is different to way radical democracy works in Venezuela, but could it also be considered a type of radical democracy, or am I completely on the wrong track?
ReplyDeleteCatherine, that's something more like "Electoral Democracy" or "Majoritarian Democracy" in the Coppedge reading. I think M Gunn was more concerned with "Egalitarian Democracy" or "Participatory Democracy" - the labels in the Coppedge reading.
ReplyDelete