Non-democracy and its problems

4 March 2008

Review

• 2 related ways of thinking about democracy (and non-democracy)– Substantive: As whatever set of institutions translate the

preferences/interests/values of the majority (minority) into government decisions

• There may be more than one such set, or none

– Institutional: As a specific set of rules that regulate who can take collectively binding decisions and how these decisions are taken, and which embody certain principles. E.g.:

• Free and fair elections for top government positions• Freedoms of speech and association• Inclusive and equal suffrage

• The substantive view is more fundamental than the institutional

Richistan

• The top 10% of the population own 80% of the wealth

• Most people are extremely poor• Elections are held regularly, and are generally

considered free and fair, though turnout is low• Nevertheless, politicians who get elected

generally pursue policies that benefit the top 10% of the population

• Is Richistan a democracy or not?

Review

• The political regime is related to a state that implements political decisions and can be strong or weak, e.g.:– Safe/not safe from violent challenges– Able to implement political decisions in a greater or

smaller number of spheres

• Excessive weakness or strength of the state may affect our judgment of its democratic or nondemocratic character, or may affect the survival or possibility of democratic institutions

Bureaucratinia

• Every aspect of life is highly regulated in Bureaucratinia

• The state controls the major part of economic and cultural life: most people depend on the state for their livelihoods. It is the ultimate “nanny state.”

• Elections are (still) held without major incidents, but most politicians are unable to significantly change the state

• Is Bureaucratinia a democracy or a non-democracy?

United Anarchia

• Elections are free and fair in United Anarchia, but the government has little power to make decisions for the whole society; it can regulate very little

• Most decisions are ignored anyway or bypassed through corruption

• Is United Anarchia democratic or non-democratic?

The goodness of democracy and the badness of non-democracy

• The case for the goodness of democracy generally rests on the idea that democratic institutions roughly and for the most part promote the real interests of the (vast) majority

• The case against non-democracy usually rests on the argument that non-democratic institutions fail to promote the real interests of the majority

• This is a very recent case…

Some arguments against democracy

• Democracy cannot ensure that knowledgeable people rule (Plato)

• Democracy may reflect the interests of the majority, but it does not reflect the interests of the whole community (Aristotle)

• Democracy leads to faction and disorder (Hobbes, many others)

• Democracy is inconsistent in its decisions (Plato, many others): it has little power to do good

• Democracy always violates the right of some minority (some libertarian thought)

• Democracy is only appropriate in particular cultural conditions (Mill, others)

Some assumptions of antidemocratic arguments

• Democracy as a set of institutions can at best translate the preferences of the majority into government decisions

• The relationship between preferences and real interests is weak

• The majority’s preferences aren’t necessarily right

Can we do better than democracy? Some proposals

• Rule by experts (Plato, many others)• A mixed regime that takes into account the

interests/views of the minority as well as the majority (Lots of different people)– Voting schemes with different weights for different

groups

• Whatever regime is appropriate to cultural conditions, or to the kind of state– E.g., the state needs to be strengthened before

democracy can be tried

Some possible responses

• The best way of translating the real interests of the majority into government decisions is to actually have them take part in government (Mill) to some extent

• Government of experts is unlikely to be possible, and it treats people like children (Mill)

• The best way of protecting the rights/interests of all is through a representative (democratic) system (Mill)

• “Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” – Winston Churchill

So how are non-democracies bad?

• All happy regimes are happy in the same way; all unhappy regimes are different– Acts in the interest of the minority. Interests/rights

of the majority are not respected– Risky. Even if their interests are sometimes

respected, there may not be a sufficient institutional link to guarantee the future respect of these interests

– Paternalistic. Or if there is some kind of institutional link, this may be equivalent to treating adults like children

– Etc.

A third way of thinking about political regimes

• Political regimes can be understood as the “game” that specifies – who has political power (e.g., the power to

make collectively binding decisions in society)– how this power can be used (under what

constraints it can be used)

Democracy and non-democracy

• What is a democracy (nondemocracy) in this framework?– A democracy (“polyarchy” – Dahl 1969) is a

political regime in which• Political power is dispersed among many groups in

society rather than concentrated• This power is subject to various constraints on its

use

– A nondemocracy is a regime in which one or both of these conditions do not hold

Where does their power come from?

A game

• One person is the dictator for 1 minute; the others are supposed to obey– Why do people obey/fail to obey?– Does the “dictator” have power?– Where does his/her power come from?