Who Decides What Is
Democratic?
Adam Przeworski
Journal of Democracy, Volume
35, Number 3, July 2024, pp. 5-16 (Article)
This overview of democracy centres
around two main definitions; the minimalist definition places importance on the
democratic process alone, while the maximalist definition sees democracy as the
tool, not the goal itself in terms of realising social values in politics. When
we defend democracy, which of these definitions are we defending, and in what
context? Przeworski attempts to answer this through three main sections of the
article:
1. The
difference between the minimalist and maximalist definitions of democracy
2. The
problems with the minimalist definition and the need to shift the focus to the
maximalist definition.
3. The
benefits of the minimalist definition alone.
This discussion leads Przeworski
to conclude that while minimalist definitions can pose threats to the
ideological integrity of democratic systems, in times of political conflict, it
is the integrity of the minimalist process that allows peaceful resolution. Yet,
when minimalism is valued over maximalism in the long term, the system
ultimately returns to an undemocratic state. Ultimately, Przeworski sees both
the value and danger of both conceptions of democracy, depending on the
political context.
Minimalism
The minimalist definition of
democracy is purely nominal, based not around the values of the political
process but the method of the process itself. Minimalists believe that as long
as this method is followed, a system will be democratic. However, this proves
often difficult. The article examples the Polish government’s extremely
socially conservative policies, which are technically democratic, yet do not embody
the values of the people it claims to represent. Under the minimalist
definition of democracy, though, these policies do represent the view of the
people, as they were formed through a process of electoral competition.
According to this definition, democracy is nothing more.
Maximalism
The maximalist definition, on the
other hand, places less importance in the processes of democracy for the sake
of democracy itself, and instead views it as an embodiment or realisation of
values held by a population. Maximalism
is harder to achieve, as the more values one attaches to it, the more difficult
it is to meet those diverse values. Electoral majority is not, therefore,
representative of the “will of the people” as Przeworski explains. Rather,
constitutions or constitutional documents more accurately ensure the values of
the people are included in the democratic system.
The difference
Interestingly, Przeworski’s
article uses personal voice in the way academic writers often do not. When
describing the French Parliament’s immigration law that restricts the rights of
non-citizens living in France, Przeworski labels it “clearly racist” and
“repulsive,” but does not necessarily believe that it is undemocratic. By incorporating
his own maximalist values of democracy, Przeworski highlights the disparity
between maximalism and minimalism, entirely rejecting the idea that there is
some moral superiority held by democracy over other non-democratic systems.
Problems with the minimalist
definition
The problems with democracy
listed by this article are noticeably mostly problems with the system as it is
conceived in a minimalist sense. The issues centre around a decline in
engagement with democratic party politics as they are now, leading to political
fragmentation, extremism, and populism, which, if left unchecked, undermine
democracy in both its minimalist and maximalist definitions. These democratic
phenomena emerge not out of ideological popularity, but rather out of the sense
of community they create for those who feel unempowered by the current government.
Therefore, independent of ideology, these problems Przeworski outlines are
problems with interpreting democracy at only the minimalist level.
Populism
Populism provides the most
interesting examination of how minimalist democracy can lead to a degradation democracy.
Characterised by its rejection of the electoral professional party, while it
can take many forms or ideologies, populism ultimately hinges on a
conflict-driven dualism between ‘us,’ a pure people, and ‘them,’ a corrupt
elite whose power is not deemed to be representative of this ‘pure people’ (Chakravartty & Roy, 2015). Przeworski describes it concisely
as the product of “widespread dissatisfaction with representative institutions.”
He outlines two main types of populism.
1. Participatory
populism – the demand of the people to rule themselves.
2. Delegative
populism – the demand of the people to be ruled well by others.
Przeworski describes delegative
populism as dangerous because it can only understand democracy in its
minimalist sense. Populist parties seek to appeal to the median voter, or a large
social group in the voting population. They often disregard professionalised
technocratic policies for more rudimentary ones that appeal to emotions rather
than any political ideology (Wirz, 2018). This is a dangerous manifestation of
democracy at its most superficial level because these parties remain in power as
long as they are creating policies based on the majority, they will remain in
power. This eventually leads to what Przeworski describes as “democratic
backsliding,” the gradual erosion of the quality of a country’s democracy,
leading to higher barriers for oppositions to incumbents and restricted rights
to freedom of speech and association. Ironically, it appears that a demand for
better representation, as populist parties make, results in overall a more
authoritarian government than had originally been criticised. Despite the
seemingly very ideologically driven campaign of populist parties, populism can
only understand democracy in its minimalist definition.
A defense of minimalism
The article provides three
counterpoints that argue for the place of minimalist democracy in democratic
systems.
1. When
values become more important than the process itself, democracy can be
endangered, and consequently these values can more easily be disregarded for
the personal values of the incumbents.
2. The
natural state of human organisation is based on conflict. Where this conflict
is inevitable, the minimalist foundation of democracy is the best way to
mediate this without violence or oppression. Przeworski aligns himself with
Hobbes argument that competition and conflict is the natural state of humanity
- and is therefore unavoidable in politics (as explained by Glover, 1966).
3. While
democracy is often criticised for its inability to authentically represent
minority groups, the article points out that defeats in democracies are always
temporary. With the natural movement of political ideals within a population,
it is likely that even if a social group suffers a defeat in one election, the
system remains democratic because there is a possibility that the next election
will gain them more representation. The example used in the reading is the US
elections of 2000 and 2004. Here, the state of politics for social groups such
as racial minorities, those with disabilities, and young people appeared to be
worsening. Yet, the 2008 election proved the constant ideological shift of democracy
and was more beneficial to these minority groups.
The place of minorities under
minimalism
However, the third claim - that
minimalist democracy predisposes a political system to representative equality
because ‘all defeats are temporary’ - is ignorant of the structural challenges
faced by minorities in democratic systems. Marquez (2017) explains how in
Ancient Greece, elections were thought of as oligarchic as minorities –
particularly the poor – were seen to have structural barriers placed against
them in electoral competition. Przeworski describes the “magic” of democracy as
being the ability to wait, yet this is perhaps only a valid point when
considering the dichotomy of centrist parties as most democracies have. For
minor parties or special interest groups, however, simply waiting will not be
enough, as the representative system is built to represent the masses, not the
minorities.
Conclusion
The article concludes by stating
that it is a carefully considered combination of both maximalisms and
minimalism that creates a well-functioning democratic system. Minimalism’s
purpose is to maintain the democratic process in times of conflict, while
maximalism ensures constitutional values are upkept in the face of majoritarian
rule. Democracies malfunction when one of the two definitions are forgotten –
maximalists forget the foundational democratic system, and minimalists forget
the ideological focus of democracy. While the continuous return to these
malfunctioning forms of democracy such as through populism is suggested by
Preworski as being due to the influence that money has on politics, I would
point to Przeworski’s third defence of minimalism as the reason the political
system has such a cyclical structure. The “magic” of democracy is also its
downfall – any major party need only wait for the public opinion to sway in
their direction to begin to erode any well-functioning democracy.
References
Main Reading:
Przeworski, A. (2024). Who
Decides What Is Democratic? Journal of Democracy 35(3),
5-16. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a930423.
Additional Readings
Chakravartty, P. & Roy, S. (2015). Mr Modi Goes to Delhi: Mediated
Populism and the 2014 Indian Elections. Television & New
Media, 16(4), 311-322.
Glover, W.B. (1966). Human Nature and the State in Hobbes. Journal of the History of Philosophy 4(4), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.1175.
Márquez, X.
(2017). Non-democratic politics : authoritarianism, dictatorship, and democratization. Palgrave, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited.
No comments:
Post a Comment