Majority decision in a democracy - Research Paper Example

? Majority Decision in a Democracy is good (But Elitism is Much Better) ID Number: of Name Word Count: 3,646 Submission Date: July 25, 2011 Introduction This paper looks at how decisions are reached in a democratic state and argues that a decision by the majority does not necessarily always yield optimal results. This is because the majority of people may not have access to crucial information for making informed decisions. This conundrum of how best to govern people has confounded sages for ages going back to the times of the ancient Greek philosophers. Various types of government styles were tried in order to find the ideal and perfect form of governance that will give the best results in terms of stability, peace and contentment for all citizens. Governance can be considered as a social experiment in which various governance structures are tried to see which works best. Governmental forms are part of the larger political systems of a country. Among the various forms that were quite common before (with some still existing today in hybrid forms) are monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, timocracy, autocracy, anarchy, democracy, socialism and republicanism, among many others. The most common form of political system prevailing in the world today is democracy. However, its being common does not necessarily confer it is a superior political system; all that can be said about democracy is that it is the best option until a better alternative can be found that best fits the objectives of a country when it comes to the issue of governance. The ideal form of government must achieve the triple purposes of peace, stability and contentment where issues and concerns of all citizens are adequately answered. This paper attempts to point out the defects and deficiencies of a democracy and also offers an exciting alternative form of rule which is the elitist type of rule. The word elitist often invites a derisive connotation but it actually offers a better prospective form of governance. Elitism is not bad per se as it envisions a rule by people best qualified to govern the rest of the people. It does not imply exclusivity as anyone who qualifies to be a member can become one. Discussion Plato (427-347 B.C.) during his time had already seen the weaknesses of democracy. This was the reason why he advocated for a different form of government – that of the rule by the chosen few, the aristocracy. His version of aristocracy is not what we think of it today that is based on owning vast tracts of land or being fabulously wealthy; rather, an aristocrat is the person who had been educated in philosophy and therefore knows a lot about virtues and in the exercise thereof, will lead people into wealth and happiness. The classical definition of the word aristocracy, as far as Plato was concerned, is a rule by the best persons of a society. This idealistic state of government is rather very utopian in aspirations, though. Plato had given up on democracy as virtually chaotic as he had seen some of its effects on Athenian society in his time, such as some occasions of mob rule and how the electorate or the general populace put into office during an election people who were not well qualified. A fairly strong dislike of democracy led to his criticisms that it will eventually lead to tyranny. In a sense, he was right on this aspect, as democracy can be considered as a form of tyranny, that is, tyranny by the majority on the minority. Further, Plato had only seen the nascent forms of democracy during his time in which it would still naturally and expectedly be chaotic. He had not seen how modern democracy works today in which safeguards are in place. He had regarded democracy as a poor form of government, much inferior than monarchy itself. What Plato instead argued for strongly was aristocracy, in order to put the best people into government positions and let them make all the important policy decisions. He thought that aristocrats are the best people to govern because they are objective and have no ulterior motives, unlike the oligarchs he had seen in his time who were driven by narrow interests. Athens had been a democracy most of the time but it had experienced brief periods of the rule by the oligarchy with disastrous results. He saw how Athens had alternated between the two. No one pretends or claims that democracy is the best form of governance. Winston Churchill had admitted likewise that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that had been tried from time to time but with bad results. Plato himself was always suspicious of democracy because of its tendency to degenerate into chaos; Athenians had exercised democracy in a very direct way and this manner of exercise can be upsetting. There were no safeguards back then against abuses and the concepts of equality and liberty for attaining justice were not in place yet nor were there constitutionally guaranteed rights. In this context, Plato drifted to the view that the best government is an aristocracy (Held 23). He called his select group of people aristocrats based on his three-tier classification of people: the “lovers of money” (bankers, merchants, traders, etc.), the lovers of honor (military people) and the lovers of wisdom (philosophers, scientists, scholars, academics, experts, etc.) and he chose this last group because they have the capacity to learn and impose self-discipline. Aristocrats are supposed to be knowledgeable due to their pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and are therefore best able to guide the ship of state (an analogy he used is the ship). The captain of a ship put at the helm must be able to navigate the ship-state to its destination in a safe manner; anyone less qualified would endanger the ship, passengers, cargo and crew. Moreover, aristocrats are the best “governors” because unlike the first two classes of people mentioned earlier (lovers of money or “Big Business” today and lovers of honor or “military establishment”) aristocrats are not constrained by a narrow set of viewpoints and agenda. It is expected that they will act for the best interests of society because they do not have desires for any wealth nor grandiose plans or ambitions which contain the seeds of future public dangers. Plato termed this hypothetical group of people as guardians; people who are put in command because they can put to the best use their wealth of knowledge and strong reasoning. Problem with this concept also presents a conundrum: who will guard the guardians? John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a brilliant English economist, philosopher and also a prodigious essay writer. His time spans the great Industrial Revolution and the rise of a new economic system at the time – capitalism. His works included On Liberty and Principles of Political Economy, both of which touched on economic issues and capitalist concepts but had also been extended to social and political concerns as well. John Stuart Mill had advocated a concept quite similar to the ideas of Plato which was that of a cultural class system governed by intellectual elites. His ideas on elitism were camouflaged by his strong defense of the ideas on individualism but on closer examination, only a lucky few people can rightfully exercise their right of being individualistic; the rest of the lower classes have to sacrifice themselves to the greater demands of the larger economic interests of society. In other words, the intellectual person is entitled to the right of individualism if it is justified by exceptional talent or ability. His ideas of individual liberty were anchored on elitist concepts, that only those who qualified by their special capacities are allowed to develop fully (Hollinger 11). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was also an English philosopher of some renown and he preferred absolute powers for the sovereign because he was suspicious to some extent of the public voice in a democracy. However, Hobbes also had liberal tendencies such that he was a bit against the idea of a natural governing elite among people such as the persons who really are more intelligent than the rest of the populace (Piacente 63) and that it is far better to have representative or even aristocratic political system; rather, he favored democracy because of a belief in the rights of the individual and the natural equality of all men. This sharply contrasts with another great philosopher named Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) who firmly believed in anti-populist thought through his elitist theory of democracy (Igwe 192), that the citizens in a modern democracy are generally politically uninformed, apathetic and manipulable by the politicians and demagogues; participation in a democracy can even be downright dangerous. John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher who believed also in the equality of all men of their natural rights to life, liberty and prosperity through ownership of property (Dye & Zeigler 4). His book Two Treatises on Government (1690) first stated the concept of a “social contract” in which a government is expected and mandated to protect aforementioned natural rights. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) expanded on the same theme with a book The Social Contract (1762). Essentially, both political thinkers were for arguments that power should come from the people being governed, either in a direct or participative democracy. On the balance, without adequate safeguards in place, democracy can really generate into some sort of license in which people take power into their own hands. This had been seen in mob rules and lynching gangs in which people persecute and kill people without legalities. The next few paragraphs show why there are weaknesses in a democracy. Plato had also seen the type of defects which disillusioned him about the prospects of democracy as the best form. Weaknesses – besides the tendency to generate into a license to commit illegal actions, democracy can also be vulnerable to group pressures (think of today’s lobby groups, advocacy organizations, charities and other non-governmental organizations) and in compromises which can water down the intent of some public policies that in turn produce bad results or not at all (Riemer & Simon 119). Democracy can even result into bureaucratic gridlock or deadlock as can be seen today in Washington’s politics in which there is a separation of powers by making the three branches of the government co-equal with each other. This results into paralysis and the non-implementation of crucial government policies to make governance more effective. A false impression held by many ordinary people is that America is a democracy when in truth this country is governed by the elites in government, academe, business and the sciences. All the major political, economic and social decisions are made by just a small minority of people (Dye & Zeigler 1) and not by the masses of people. This is a fact for quite some time already. A true democracy can likewise not be counted upon during an emergency or a crisis. During such times, people tend to panic, not knowing what to do and compound a problem by running around like a headless chicken. A majority decision is no guarantee that the right or a correct decision had been arrived at after presumably some consultations in an assembly. The ordinary people cannot be entrusted to make the right and favorable decisions all the time. It is therefore a dangerous precedent to turn power to the people and it is far better to entrust the political powers to a selected elite educated and wise on the ways of governance as Plato said. John Stuart Mill had over his lifetime became hostile to popular rule because of its danger and weaknesses; a majority of the common people (in his term, the “uneducated herd”) imposing a rule on the minority of a few exceptional individuals (Sharma & Sharma 48). The rise of the dictator Hitler in Nazi Germany is an example of how people can elect the wrong leader. The way democracy works in most countries today, there are effectively no guarantees that elected leaders will work for the common weal and public interest. Once elected, it is often too late. The Silent Majority – one of the most persistent dilemmas facing any government is the mass of people who are apathetic, that group of people termed as the silent majority. These people refuse to participate in any democratic exercise in any meaningful form. Despite the many efforts to get them involved, citizen involvement in politics is on the decline. The silent majority can distort electoral results such that a vocal minority and very active in politics can have an undue influence on the course of public policy debates and implementation. This kind of situation was what bothered Mr. Gallup himself when he conducted opinion polls, trying to determine which views, comments and opinions are legitimately the concerns of the majority and not just of the “articulate minority” who are very vocal (Glasser & Salmon 440). At any rate, people who voluntarily exclude themselves from political life by not voting, for example, effectively default on their duties as responsible citizens of any government or country. A Spiral of Silence – this is a political science theory propounded by Elisabeth Noelle- Neumann which asserts that people belonging in the minority are unlikely to voice opinions for fear of becoming more isolated. In this aspect, the fear is that by saying something that is not in consonance with the majority view or public opinion, people will end up being isolated or marginalized further by expressing disagreement to the dominant public opinion. A person holding a minority opinion is likely to stay silent rather risk social isolation by voicing out their views in public (Noelle-Neumann & Petersen 339). The fear is usually triggered by the feelings of embarrassment but other factors may influence a person from not speaking out. A tendency to fall silent has a profound effect on how public opinion affects people’s behaviors and consequently their lives as well which can extend to the political sphere. This spiral could have caused the rise of Hitler by suppressing public opinion that led to Germany’s choosing a wrong leader and support for wrong political positions that caused defeat and humiliation. It is also attributed as one of the causes why Americans did not voice out strong opposition to the first Gulf War (1991) and got swayed due to some “bandwagon effect” in public opinion polls as communicated by the pervasive media; there was no critical mass of opposition. Active Citizen Participation – many people who do not participate actively in politics voice the view that politics is dirty; however, politics becomes dirty when the citizens do not involve themselves in matters that concern them. It is dirty precisely because of the lack of citizen participation. When people are actively involved, the spiral of silence will not prevail. Politicians are very sensitive to public opinion polls and fear adverse public opinion on them. This was what author Noelle-Neumann herself said that the spiral of silence is incompatible with the ideals of democracy because an informed, engaged, active and responsible citizenry will not stay silent for long (Noelle-Neumann 199); surely not due to fear of being ostracized. But it will take a special group of people, the elites, to prod the masses along to participate. De facto ruling by Elites – the United States of America had long been ruled by elites. The wrong impression is that America is a bastion of democracy, the kind of participative and representative democracy being portrayed to the rest of the world today. However, events and facts point out the elites were making all the major or important decisions in American life. It is a fact not known by many people who persistently believed in a myth of democratic ideals. The masses in America do not initiate but merely tend to follow the dictates of the elites. This aspect of American governance has been implicitly following the ideal form of Plato and also that advocated by John Stuart Mill, a rule by intellectual elitism is the best hope and option. Benefits of Elite Rule – one thing which had stumped philosophers since the days of old was aptly stated by the Roman poet Juvenal who said “Who will guard the guardians?” An agreement or consensus can be formed as to who will qualify as a member of the elites; a modern aristocrat might be someone who has advanced degrees in philosophy, for example. A rule by elites will produce far better results because elite members are people who are trained in philosophy, the arts and sciences are therefore more careful in their observations, critical in their analysis and certainly more cautious when making judgments. A rule by the elites is the most natural thing in the world because all societies, past and present, had been governed by the elites (Dye & Zeigler 2); this finding is irrespective of whether a society is agricultural or industrial, socialist or capitalist and also whether it is traditional or even modern. All societies require leadership and elites best provide it because citizen participation in a democracy is at best just an illusion. It is even possible for democracy and elitism to co-exist, depending on underlying conditions and political circumstances (Best & Higley 93). Proponents of classical forms of democracy are always skeptical of the benefits provided by elitism because all they had seen were the abuses and the wrong notions of what true elitism in governance is about. They had not seen how society benefits from a truly benevolent rule by the elites. It is also not exclusionary as people generally think, as elitism in America provides for upward mobility. Dangers of Elite Rule – there are of course inherent dangers in elite rule, foremost of which is abuse of authority because of a monopoly on the reins of power. This can lead to the fears of democrats such as tyranny and oppression not unlike that in a monarchy or oligarchy. There might be times when the objectives and interests of the ruling elites will diverge from that of the majority of the people and elitists can dictate, circumvent or circumscribe the will of the people to suit their own narrow agenda. There is the danger that elites will eventually be tempted to abuse their power and rule without consent. Counter-Arguments – when elitism is properly designed and implemented, it is one of the best forms of governance ever devised and conceived. Popular democracy is messy, noisy, unstable, unpredictable, time-consuming and worst of all, does not guarantee the best results. On the other hand, elitism at its best can be seen in the best business corporations of today. In this variant of elitism, a board of directors is chosen among the best qualified to lead the firm. We can contrast the lack of ruling elites in the case of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in which direct participatory democracy is exercised through committees of the whole made up of the entire membership of nations. Decisions are quite very slow in coming and results into a contentious atmosphere as no effective higher authority governs the entire body itself. The only objective of elitism is to seek out the best possible rulers through an honest selection of the best qualified people who pursues the welfare of the common weal as their own. Decision making by the best corporate boards is an example of the best features of elitism. Aristotle and Plato had seen the defects of democracy such as the ineptitude, laziness and complacency of the masses; the danger of democracy is not lessened by a higher level of literacy as any ruler in a democratic state will also have to contend with the lack of restraint by the masses when there are issues which can stir up emotions and the mass of people can become uncontrollable and turn into lynch mobs or a rule by the mobs (Oyugi & Gitonga 39). Conclusion Democracy has been overhyped and other forms of governance like the aristocracy of Plato is best suited for modern times. In an increasingly complex world, the elites are the ones who can make the best decisions. Elites may occasionally abuse their powers and authority but this is a minor risk that can be easily corrected with safeguards in place. Because the elites are erudite, they make better decisions than ordinary citizens. Further, the ruling elites have been on occasion also the ones who started reform movements to bring about changes in the societies they rule. Elitism has acquired a bad reputation but it is high time to re-examine its benefits; elitism does not necessarily mean the masses are exploited, abused or oppressed. The word elitism merely implies that the ultimate responsibility for leadership and of mass welfare stays with the elites and not with the common masses (Dye & Zeigler 4). In time of unusually high literacy rates engendered by a strong centralized educational system, the elites will have to be chosen by the people themselves through a nomination process. Minimum qualifications standards will be imposed on those nominated to ensure only qualified people are selected to rule; this will have attained the objective of Plato of rule by the knowledgeable and the wise. These are the people who had been properly educated; know their current events and also the latest in scientific research, political and economic developments. Their knowledge base is updated. Governance by the elites is more efficient and less prone to errors and mistakes. However, a majority of respondents in my survey still preferred democracy over elitism. The rule of elitism in America is not exclusionary as upward mobility enables any person who is eminently qualified to join the ranks of the elites; this movement helps dispel instability in the elite system of governance (known as “circulation of elites”) which defuses or siphons off any potential revolutionary tendencies in the masses once they see they can attain to elitism. America was founded on the movement of the talented and ambitious into the elite society. Works Cited Best, Heinrich and John Higley. Democratic Elitism: New Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2010. Print. Dye, Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler. The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Boston, MA, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Glasser, Theodore Lewis and Charles T. Salmon. Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press, 1995. Print. Held, David. Models of Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2006. Print. Hollinger, Robert. The Dark Side of Liberalism: Elitism vs. Democracy. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. Print. Igwe, Ukoro T. Communicative Rationality and Deliberative Democracy by Jurgen Habermas. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Transaction Publishers, 2004. Print. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, our Social Skin. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Print. (a re-print). Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth and Thomas Petersen. “The Spiral of Silence and Social Nature of Man.” Handbook of Political Communication Research. Ed. Lynda Lee Kaid. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated, 2004. 339-461. Print. Oyugi, W. O. and A. Gitonga. Democratic Theory and Practice in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: East African Educational Publishers Limited, 1987. Print. Piacente, Albert. Complete the American Revolution! What 9-11, Corporate Scandal and the 2000 Presidential Election Have in Common and What We Can Do About it. Lanham, MD, USA: Hamilton Books, 2004. Print. Riemer, Neal and Douglas Simon. The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. San Diego, CA, USA: Collegiate Press, 1997. Print. Sharma, S. K. and Urmila Sharma. Western Political Thought. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers, 2006. Print. APPENDICES (Glossary of Terms and Survey Questions with Results): Appendix I. Glossary of Terms 1. Anarchy – this is a situation where is there an absence of any form of the usual government structures. It implies the lack of a ruler and connotes the absence of any publicly recognized government, or if there is one, political authority is not enforced due to various reasons, such as a weak central government or the presence of many warring tribes or political factions. 2. Aristocrat – a person defined and conceptualized by Greek philosopher Plato as any person schooled in the arts and philosophy who is therefore best suited for an office of governance (as defined in classical terms, not of today’s wealthy). 3. Autocracy – it is a form of government in which only one person holds all the powers of governance; other terms synonymous with autocrat is despot, tyrant or dictator. In Greek, the word means “one who rules all by himself” and this is implied by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive authority. Autocracy is synonymous with totalitarianism in which there is absolute, total control of every aspect of public and private life of its citizenry. 4. Democracy – literally, this means “the rule of the people” in which every man or woman who is qualified and eligible can participate (either directly or by the use of representatives) in which all have an equal say in matters and decisions that affect their lives. The foundation of democracy is in the concept of popular sovereignty or the will of the people is the source of the government's powers. It is best described as a rule by the majority and that rule is based on laws. 5. Elitism – a political science theory which holds that only a small minority are fit to rule based on memberships in political, economic or social networks that determine public planning initiatives and argues that it can arrive at better or more informed decisions as contrasted with pluralistic democracy which is an utopian ideal; elitism involves erudite people, persons who are very learned. 6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) – a Swiss philosopher from Geneva whose views on government forms closely echoed that of John Locke, that power of a government should emanate from the people themselves. 7. John Locke (1632-1704) – English philosopher who first broached the idea that a government’s primary duty is protect its own citizens. This is accomplished by ensuring the sanctity of private ownership of property which guarantees the natural rights to life, liberty and prosperity. 8. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) – English philosopher who preferred a rule by the elites, specifically intellectual elites. His views most closely mirrored those of Greek philosopher Plato, with a slight variance of strong individualism. 9. Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) – an Austrian-American economist who first used the term “creative destruction” to describe the natural process of selection in a capitalist system in which firms go bankrupt but new ones are established. His political theories rested on a rule by the elites as the masses in a democracy are usually apathetic, generally uninformed and easily manipulable. 10. Juvenal – a Roman poet who first popularized the conundrum and term: “Who will guard the guardians?” His question is often used by those against elitism to cite the dangers of a rule by the elites which can open the doors to abuses. 11. Monarchy – a form of government in which the head of state is usually a member of the royal family (emperor, empress, king, queen, prince, princess, etc.). This title is also most often hereditary; a monarchy is a variant of autocracy or a rule by one person only (may or may not be assisted by an assembly, legislative body or a parliament of some kind). 12. Oligarchy – this is a form of governance where power rests only with the few people who are either privileged by wealth, royalty, family ties, corporate or a military connection to the powers-that-be and this is very similar to elitism. A closer look at history will reveal most oligarchies were corrupt and oppressive as the people in power seek to exclude the rest of the people from governance. 13. Plato (427-347 B.C.) – Greek political philosopher who profoundly influenced Western political thought even today. He advocated for an aristocracy or a rule by an elite ruling class, very similar in concept to elitism. 14. Plutocracy – generally described and characterized by a rule of the wealthy and the rich have more votes than the ordinary people. When an oligarchy is mostly composed of the rich and the wealth, it is classified as a plutocracy. 15. Republicanism – this is the most common modern form of government today. It relies on the rule of law as the source of its power, mainly derived from the rights guaranteed in a constitution. It can be considered as the logical result of the liberalism propounded by John Locke in which liberty is paramount. 16. Silent Majority – the generally unspecified but large portion of a populace that does not express its political position or opinion in any public manner. Former Pres. Richard Nixon was credited for popularizing this term, saying a large group of the people supported his Vietnam War and Southeast Asia policies and that the large anti-war demonstrations were done by just a noisy minority. This concept can be convenient for any politician to use, claiming to speak or act in behalf of the silent majority, effectively hijacking democracy by acting alone. 17. Socialism – this is a form of governance using a collective-style of leadership. The most common and visible form of this type of governance is communism that relies on an elimination of political hierarchy although this is not practiced in most communist and socialist countries where they govern by elitism also. 18. Spiral of Silence - a political science theory propounded by Elisabeth Noelle- Neumann which asserts that people belonging in the minority are unlikely to voice opinions for fear of becoming more isolated. This is sort of mirror-image of the silent majority but this time, those in the minority stay silent for the fear of ridicule, further social isolation, embarrassment or even persecution. When conscientious voters who belong in the minority opt to stay silent, they do not or fail to provide the necessary counterweight to populist ideology and agenda. 19. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) – an English philosopher who opposed elitism and preferred democracy because of his belief in the natural rights of man and the inherent equality of all men. 20. Timocracy – a variant of plutocracy where only property owners can exercise political powers by participation in the government. Many times, those who are members of a timocracy do everything to entrench themselves by enhancing their wealth status by almost any means possible. Appendix II. Survey Questions with Results Questionnaire/Survey Form: (20 respondents) 1. What is it you like the most about democratic governments in today’s politics? 2. What is it about democracy that you hate or dislike the most? 3. If given a chance, what form of government would you like or prefer? 4. What do you think are the weaknesses and defects of modern-day democracy? 5. Would you prefer a rule by the members of the elite? 6. What can you suggest to improve democracy in today’s governments? 7. How can governments encourage more citizen participation in civic life? Results of the survey: a) 15 people preferred democracy because it allows them to express their views on matters that concern them through voting candidates who share their views (Q1). b) 5 people disliked democracy because they think it is chaotic and paralyzing (Q2). c) 5 people chose elitism as the better alternative to democracy (Question 3). d) Defects cited were too messy, time-consuming, ineffective and inefficient (Q4). e) Only 5 people chose preference to be ruled by elites; part of this low turnout for elitism is it has acquired a bad name; people associate it with class and privilege that benefits only a few members of society – the upper class (Question 5). f) Suggestions included more active participation and choosing rightfully all the leaders (candidates) who genuinely support the concerns of people (Q6). g) Governments can encourage more active citizen participation through holding of town hall meetings; any form of media that can provide citizen feedback (Q7). Read More