Tuesday 22 September 2009
Problem Task on Majoritarian vs Pluralist Democracy
League of Women Voters "Charting the Health of American Democracy" The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920 as an outgrowth of the suffragist movement, is one of the nation's premier political education and advocacy groups. The League is non-partisan and neither supports nor opposes candidates for office at any level of government. Recently, the League's concern with the state of democracy in the United States led it to publish a report entitled Charting the Health of American Democracy. Go to the League's home page, located at http://www.lwv.org/, and find the online version of this report. Read the sections entitled "Introduction-The Diagnosis" and "Summary." Does the League appear to be focusing its attention and efforts on concerns about the state of majoritarian or pluralist democracy in the U.S.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The League is obviously preoccupied with a lamentable state of majoritarian democracy in America. When the pluralist democracy elements are thriving more than ever, the League’s major concern is reinvigorating majoritarian principles. “The Diagnosis” criteria, used to depict how the system is discrediting itself, are clearly those of a majoritarian democracy. The report is prudently avoiding the pitfalls of majoritarian model by propagating civil knowledge and political awareness.
ReplyDeleteThe dilemma of special interest groups is the top priority on the agenda. The League's report challenges interest groups’ democracy (a.k.a. pluralist democracy) and its feasibility. I share the same vision here. Lobbies and interest groups are the centerpieces of American democracy. But when applied to practice, their principles are by no means a panacea from inefficient politics. Sad as it is, political representation is both unequal and uneven in the U.S. Lobbies and big businesses invest money into campaigns in the form of “soft money, providing unlimited special interest". Therefore, let’s face it: it all rounds up to whoever has the money, gets the power. The sole idea of the accountable and responsive government risks being distorted, to say nothing about transparency. This presents a certain conundrum: how can people break the impenetrable vicious circle of special interest а money а power?
The League’s report opts for public financing of the campaigns and also supports representation diversity. However, the odds of changing the system in such a radical way any time soon are pitifully low. Fostering a sort of scale-free social (sociopolitical?) network within the citizens via majoritarian methods may be the only way to fill some gapping voids in American democracy. Pluralist democracy, so vehemently opposed by the League, is tipping the political balance towards less civic participation and consequently less governmental responsiveness and relevance. Such pitfalls trigger the advocacy for majoritarian model. The report’s sole purpose is the advancement of majoritarian principles and higher public engagement in politics at all levels. An attempt to turn the system upside down at once would have been a major political faux pas, but the gradual switch towards majoritarian model seems inevitable. The verdict is in: majoritarian democracy is likely to be on the way.
Very conclusive answer but try to prove your point giving more examples.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the League appears to be focusing it’s attention on the majoritarian democracy in the US. As we know, majoritarian democracy means that government pursue policies that are immediately responsive to what the majority of the people want. General elections and referendums are the key things in majoritarian model.
ReplyDeleteFirst, according to the “Diagnosis”, the League focuses on problem of voter participation in the elections and maintains thsat more people should go and vote. I think, this problem has quite a majoritarian origin
Second, the League maintains that “More than three out of four Americans (76 percent) believe they do not have "enough accurate information" to participate at the voting booth, according to a survey done for the League of Women Voters”. So, we see, that opinion of the majority is the most important factor for the League.
Also the League concerns about how many town meetings are held- and on town meetings the opinion of the majority plays a key role.
Third, the League estimates that healthy democracy is where people “join together to address common concerns”, where all people are involved. Obvious, that when everyone is involved the opinion of the majority is taken into account.
To sum up, the Leagues report advocates more majoritarian than pluralist views
The League of Women Voters seems to be an interesting organization - it is an interest group but, according to the website, it is interested in involving as many americans as possible (not only W.A.S.P.s and millionaires). Such policy makes it a hybrid - pluralist democracy for every citizen. However, the members of this league can't avoid dividing the society into different groups. For instance, there is a point in an article which deals with diversity of representation of different national groups (women and ethnic minorities) in Congress. Interest in minorities protection makes the League more closer to a majoritarian model of democracy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the introduction to the article it is said that restoring democracy means renewing its values for a current generation. By generation the League means the whole nation.
Thus, the League of Women Voters seems to me an organization with a pluralist basis (people from all stratas of the society can become its members and their policy doesn't cover one particular social group), but with majoritarian way of promoting their interests (through minorities).
In my opinion the League appears to be focusing its attention and efforts on concerns about the state of majoritarian democracy in the USA. According to the article citizens too often are withdrawing from the political process, so confidence in civic institutions is declining and government is growing less responsive to citizens' concerns. The League wants American society to take concentrated actions. Members of the League believe that citizens have to vote. They think that if people don’t vote democracy is weakened and government is less accountable . And we know that general elections and referendums are the key things in majoritarian model.
ReplyDeleteThis organization has an important role to play- in getting Americans more involved in their communities, at the ballot box ,in public policy debates and in government deliberations at all levels. So we can say that the League wants people to participate in the political life though voter and civic participation, not through different interest groups. As it is said in the article “democracy is a promise, not a guarantee. It is a promise that each of us, as citizens, makes to one another.” So to participate, to debate and to vote are the key characteristics and steps of “healthy” democracy that actually represent majoritarian model.
On the other hand we have to mention that this organization is some kind of an interest group. Even though it is non partisan –doesn’t support or opposes candidates for office at any level of government, it still works to increase understanding of major public issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy , like other interest groups do. So there is a dilemma: supporting majoritarian system ,pursuing policies that are immediately responsive to what the majority of the people want ,it is striking example of pluralist democracy .
I believe that the League of Women Voters appears to be paying more attention to the state of majoritarian democracy more than pluralist one. The report obviously supports the majoritarian principles (they have measured the health of American democracy based on the voter participation, civic participation, campaign finance and so on). They want the voter turnout to be increased in future and are eager to accomplish that goal through aggressive programs at all levels to contact potential voters, ask for their participation and provide the information they need.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the repost, it’s clear that the opinion of the majority is a crucial one, when setting a precise “diagnosis”. Members of the League are trying to present a picture of a democracy in trouble, giving proofs which tend to be percentage of the population, lacking or doing something wrong. For example, 76% of Americans lack information, women make up more than 51 percent of the voting-age population, etc. They seem not to be interested in the problems like the coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles (which is the guiding principle of pluralism in democratic politics).
Moreover, they describe healthy democracy as “a place where people join together to address common concerns”. As we know, majoritarianism is a philosophy that asserts that a majority of the population has the right to make decisions that affect the society. Participation. Debates. Voting. These 3 factors describe the majoritarian model as well. But it’s not fair to meet the demands of the majority, ignoring the problems of minorities.
While trying to prove your point of your ,please, adduce your supportive arguments. Dasha, Nastya and Aziza were very argumentative in their posts.
ReplyDelete