In what ways, if at all, might it be said that democracy ensures power by the people, for the people?
SSCPL2080
Power and Decision-Making in Britain.
In what ways, if at all, might it be said that democracy ensures power by the people, for the people?
Rachael Fowler-251152
The word 'Democracy' derives from the ancient Greek words 'demos' and 'kratos' with a modern translation of rule by the people. Democracy as a word and concept is often contested in today's day and age as Bernard Crick states 'Democracy is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of public affairs' (Crick, 1962). Robertson also argues quite similarly stating that ' Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world.'(Robertson,1986). Due to the early Greek writings 5th century Athenians formed a 'direct' form of democracy where every citizen was given the right to vote. It was this form of democracy that inspired the democracy that we have come to adopt in Western Europe .But who truly exercises power in the UK is democracy that 'ensures power by the people, for the people' or does democracy ensure power to the elites?
A pluralist view of democracy derives from a classic liberal way of thinking and is often called liberal democracy. Pluralism is the belief 'in diversity or choice, or the theory that political power should be widely and evenly dispersed.'(Heywood,1998)
The pluralist model power is truly ' by the people for the people' as power is exercised through the mass population rather than a small elite. The ideals of a pluralist democracy include the ideas that the electorate is accountable to the elector, governmental institutions are accessible to groups and 'there is a wide dispersal of power among competing groups'. (Heywood, 2002). Therefore if electorates as a majority do not like what their representatives are doing they can vote against them, meaning that a representative's actions has to benefit the majority of the electorate. However critics of pluralist democracy argue that although a representative should act on behalf of his representatives however a representative also has party affiliations and must also act on behalf of his political party. This highlights the fact that representatives aren't actually 100% accountable to the electorate so they don't always act with their electorates best interests in mind. A pluralist democracy is a form of democracy that 'operates through the capacity of organised groups and interests to articulate popular demands and ensure government responsiveness.'(Heywood,2002). This means that people are able to ensure their power through interest groups such as trade unions and pressure groups, pressure groups are one of they main groups that ensure this.
Pressure groups are free from political affiliations like representatives, again they ensure that power is ensured ' by the people for the people', a main foundation for democracy. Pressure groups are essential to an effective to a functioning democracy as they assist with the dispersal of power. Pluralists believe that pressure groups are the answer to the democratic deficit which continues to build as most people's political participation is casting a vote every five years, this shows that people have little or no influence over the decisions made by the representatives. Pluralists argue that pressure groups increase participation ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Pressure groups are free from political affiliations like representatives, again they ensure that power is ensured ' by the people for the people', a main foundation for democracy. Pressure groups are essential to an effective to a functioning democracy as they assist with the dispersal of power. Pluralists believe that pressure groups are the answer to the democratic deficit which continues to build as most people's political participation is casting a vote every five years, this shows that people have little or no influence over the decisions made by the representatives. Pluralists argue that pressure groups increase participation and make our political system more accessible thereby strengthening the basis of pluralist democracy.
The immense strength of pressure groups under the labour government is ever becoming more significant. Under a conservative government pressure groups such as charter 88 gained insider status (Grant,1998). However as Grant points out in 'The economic policies of the Blair government'(1998) while some groups such as charter 88 did receive insider status very few other pressure groups did receive the same status.
Many would agree that pressure groups play an important role in our political system critics of pluralist democracy argue that pressure groups aren't as representative of us as we think.
Pressure groups don't really represent their members as their officers aren't usually elected but appointed, few groups have procedures for consulting their members. Evidently as a pressure group may not represent their members they are unlikely to represent their views of their members. However as Grant (1998) states it's not often that the government listens to a pressure group that doesn't confirm to the ideology of the party. Marxists argue that pluralism is a clever disguise of the ruling class, as they portray the decision makers as arbitrators between competing groups agendas. By presenting the idea that decision makers are natural arbiters when really their true concern is capitalism. Pressure groups also 'give people the hope that they can make a difference' (Bentley et al, 2000).Pressure groups are an essential dimension of any democracy, yet they can endanger democracy if sectional groups undermine the public interest or if the methods they use are corrupt or intimidating.
Pluralists accept the fact the power cannot be evenly distributed but they believe that power is and should be widely dispersed into the hands of many rather than the hands of few. Pluralists also believe that power cannot be exercised by one group. In the case of the state it should be impartial and respond to the demand of popular pressures. Pluralists believe that a state were no one body exerts power is beneficial to a true pluralist democracy as it ensures that people can have influence over their decision makers, it encourages people to participate in the political process and ensures power is dispersed
Robert Dahl was one pluralist theorist that believed all of the above qualities are existent in modern western society, he believed that 'no one group is without power to influence decision making, and equally, no group is dominant.'(Hill, 2005) Dahl proved his theory through participant observation of a small town (New Haven) where he selected a number of issues and the outcome. Dahl concluded that the decision making process was not an elitist but a pluralistic one with any major decision making process the leaders present were from a number of different groups promoting discussion and preventing a elitist rule. People had active participation through voting and although relationships between groups and group actors may be hierarchical there is evidence of competition. Critics of Dahl argue that not all groups are retranslated, there are some groups such as mentally ill or animals that are unable to represent themselves so they rely on others to do it for them. Not all people vote so it can't act as a check on the decision making process and with the continuous growth of apathy in UK this is a major problem. Also a group of competing decision making doesn't make the decision making process pluralistic it just makes it a competing group of elites. (Hill, 2005) Others believed that the decision making process never existed for the people as the choices we were allowed to make were already 'non -decisions'. This was a term coin by Bachrach and Baratz, they defined it as 'the practice of limiting the scope of actual decision-making to 'safe' issues by manipulating the dominant community values, myths, political institutions and procedures' (Hill, 2005) Referendums area perfect example of the 'non-decision' making process, as they allow people to believe that they are taking an active part in their decision making process by exercising their power to vote. However as Bentley (2000) notes in British Politics the form of a question asked in a referendum can determine a voter's decision before they have made it. It's possible to tailor a question to get the answer they want also the fact that our government only ever uses referendums when they know they'll receive the answer they want. For example there hasn't been a referendum on EU currency yet as Blair knows that the referendum would not have the outcome he wished. Pluralists critique to the 'non-decision' making process is that it cannot be researched.
An alternative to a pluralistic democracy is elitism, elitism is the belief that power is exceeded not 'by the people for the people' but by a small elite for the people. Elitism developed from such theorists as Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1857-1941) who believed that democracy was a delusion as political power is always exercised by a small elite. Robert Michels (1876-1936) theory was slightly different he believed that no matter how democratic some institutions may appear the power will always lie in the hands a small elite not the hands of an unintelligent, apathetic majority. Michels named this 'The Iron law of oligarchy'. (Heywood, 2002). Although classical elitists such as Mosca and Pareto believed in proving that there was no democracy only elitism, modern elitists such C. Wright Mills(1916-1962) and Jospeh.A.Schumpeter(1883-1950) desired to show how far modern political institutions fell short of democracy. Elitists see elite rule as inevitable, not only inevitable but desirable as it's thought, by elitist theorists, that it is better to have power in the hands of 'a wise and enlightened minority'(Heywood,2002).
As you can already see an elitist model varies differently from that of a pluralistic democracy model. As previously noted pluralists believe that political parties exist to air the opinion or views of their voters. However elitists argue that this is not so and that political parties will only voice the party's opinions or views not that or their voters especially is the views of voters don't coincide with the party's interest. Such as the Iraq war it was obvious that many of the British public did not want to go to war with Iraq these voices were not heard by our government and we went to war despite the opinions and views of the majority.
Pluralists believe that interest groups such as unions and pressure groups have an input in decision making. However as previously mentioned elites believe that a 'non-decision' making process exists. As previously mentioned a 'non decision' making process is 'the practice of limiting the scope of actual decision-making to 'safe' issues by manipulating the dominant community values, myths, political institutions and procedures' (Hill, 2005). Already listed as a form of 'non decision' is referendums. However in Hill's The Public Policy Process (2005) he lists Bachrach and Baratz's forms of non decision making as a use of force, power, referring issues to committees and reshaping procedures to prevent any opinions and views that do not align with governments policies from entering the decision making process. Unfortunately all of these appear to exist in our decision making process. In parliament we have party whips who can prevent the emergence of issues. Since the 1997 general elections power for party whips has increase allowing the party to gain more control of their MP's and the decision they make. MP's know that they should do nothing 'which brings the labour party into disrepute' (Bentley et al, 2000) otherwise whips are able to apply such pressure as the removal of promotion and more secretively bribery. Another method Labour uses to ensure the 'non decision process' is select committees and quangos all though both are meant to be used to aide the decision making process, keep check on government and to have an input to policies. However the reality or an elitist reality would be that although a select committee is democratic as it acts as a power check on government, government ultimately control the outcome as MP's which are controlled by party whips who will want an out come that can align with party policies. Quangos can also used as a bribery tool by whips to persuade MP's to the party's way of thinking.
Pluralists believe that interest groups 'compete on a level playing field' and everyone has the chance to voice their opinions, however ' what a group achieves depends on it's resources and it's decibel rating' (Hill,2005). However elitists argue that this is not the case as government is more likely to use pressure groups that adhere to government policy.
After examining pluralist democracy and elitism, it could be said that democracy does ensure power however it's not always by the people sometimes by an elite for the people. In the UK there exists a number of democratic institutions, however the question is are they controlled by a 'non-decision' process which as Hill (2005) can not be proved as we cannot study it. Democracy does exist in our country and it does ensure power however the question may be is the power in the hands of the majority or in the hands of a small elite?
Word count 2077
Bibliography
Bentley et al.(2000) British Politics is focus: Causeway press, Lancs.
Crick, B.(1962)A Defence of Politics: Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Grant,W(1998) The economic policies of the Blair government: Lancaster.
Heywood,A.(1998) Politics-2nd Edn: Palgrave
Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies An Introduction: Palgrave
Hill, M.(2005) The Public policy process-4th Edn: Pearson-Longman, Harlow.
Robertson, R.(1986)The penguin Dictionary of politics: Penguin