Polyarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In modern political science, the term Polyarchy (Greek: poly many, arkhe rule)[1] was introduced by Robert A. Dahl, now emeritus professor at Yale University, to describe a form of government that was first implemented in the United States and gradually adopted by many other countries. According to Dahl, the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his interests be given equal consideration. A polyarchy is a nation-state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.[1][2]


Contents

[edit] Definitions

Dahl's original theory of Polyarchal Democracy is in his 1956 book, A Preface to Democratic Theory. His theory evolved over the decades, and the description in later writings is somewhat different.

[edit] A Preface to Democratic Theory

In this book, Dahl gives eight conditions, which measure the extent to which majority rule is in effect in an organization. These are (p. 84):

  • Every member of the organization performs the acts we assume to constitute an expression of preference among the scheduled alternatives, e.g., voting.
  • In tabulating these expressions (votes), the weight assigned to each individual is identical.
  • The alternative with the greatest number of votes is declared the winning choice.
  • Any member who perceives a set of alternatives, at least one of which he regards as preferable to any of the alternatives presently scheduled, can insert his preferred alternative(s) among those scheduled for voting.
  • All individuals possess identical information about the alternatives.
  • Alternatives (leaders or policies) with the greatest number of votes displace any alternatives (leaders or policies) with fewer votes.
  • The orders of elected officials are executed.
  • Either all interelection decisions are subordinate or excutory to those arrived at during the election stage, i.e, elections are in a sense controlling; or new decisions during the interelection period are governed by the preceding seven conditions, operating, however, under rather different institutional circumstances; or both.

Dahl hypothesized that each of these condition can be quantified, and suggested using the term polyarchy to call an organization that scores high on the scales for all the eight conditions.

[edit] Democracy and its critics

In his 1989 book, Democracy and its critics, Dahl gives the following characteristics of a polyarchy (p. 233):

  • Control over governmental decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials.
  • Elected officials are chosen and peacefully removed in relatively frequent, fair and free elections in which coercion is quite limited.
  • Practically all adults have the right to vote in these elections.
  • Most adults also have the right to run for the public offices for which candidates run in these elections.
  • Citizens have an effectively enforced right to freedom of expression, particularly political expression, including criticism of the officials, the conduct of the government, the prevailing political, economic, and social system, and the dominant ideology.
  • They also have access to alternative sources of information that are not monopolized by the government or any other single group.
  • Finally, they have an effectively enforced right to form and join autonomous associations, including political associations, such as political parties and interest groups, that attempt to influence the government by competing in elections and by other peaceful means.

[edit] Characteristics

Polyarchy and its procedures by itself may be insufficient for achieving full democracy. For example, poor people may be unable to participate in the political process.[3]

Moreover, perceived polyarchies -such as the United States- may bar a substantial amount of its citizens from participating in its national electoral process. For example, more than four million U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. territories (such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are excluded from voting for the President and are excluded from participating in the election of any voting-member of Congress, which are the political bodies that hold ultimate sovereignty over them.[2][3]

When, in the 1940s, Joseph Schumpeter argued that ordinary citizens should limit their participation in a democracy to electing its leaders, he was effectively arguing for polyarchy. This contrasts with the view presented in the eighteenth century by Rousseau, that the health of a polity depended on active citizen involvement in all aspects of governance. According to Schumpeter, massive political participation is regarded as undesirable and even dangerous. Schumpeter thought that the electoral masses are incapable of political participation other than voting for their leaders. He claimed most political issues are so remote from the daily lives of ordinary people, that they can not make sound judgements about opinions, policies and ideologies.

In Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) Dahl argues that an increase in citizen political involvement may not always be beneficial for polyarchy. An increase in the political participation of members of "lower" socioeconomic classes, for example, could reduce the support for the basic norms of polyarchy, because members of those classes are more pre-disposed to be authoritarian-minded.[4] [5]

In a discussion of contemporary British foreign policy, Mark Curtis stated that "Polyarchy is generally what British leaders mean when they speak of promoting 'democracy' abroad. This is a system in which a small group actually rules and mass participation is confined to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing elites." [6]

According to William I. Robinson, democracy is a contested concept. He argues that when U.S. policymakers use the term democracy, they mean polyarchy - a system in which a small group rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites. Polyarchy then may be thought of as "low intensity democracy" or "consensual domination". In contrast to polyarchy, Robinson posits "popular democracy", which refers to a dispersal throughout society of political power that can be used to change unjust social and economic structures.[7]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Citations

[edit] References

  1. ^ polyarchy - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  2. ^ Raskin, James B. (2003). Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Vs. the American People. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 36–38. ISBN 0415934397
  3. ^ Torruella, Juan R. (1985). The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal.
  4. ^ Dahl, Preface to Democratic Theory, p. 89
  5. ^ "Citizen participation and democracy in the Netherlands", by Ank Michels (referenced 26 September 2006)
  6. ^ Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World, p. 247, London: Vintage UK Random House. ISBN 0-09-944839-4
  7. ^ Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, U. S. Intervention, and Hegemony by William I. Robinson, Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Nov., 1997), pp. 308-310, in JSTOR
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy"
Personal tools