‘We have not got democratic government today. I venture to suggest… that we shall never have it. What we have done in all the progress of reform and evolution is to broaden the basis of oligarchy’ (Anthony Eden, 1928). Explain and discuss t
'We have not got democratic government today. I venture to suggest... that we shall never have it. What we have done in all the progress of reform and evolution is to broaden the basis of oligarchy' (Anthony Eden, 1928). Explain and discuss this statement and consider how far, and in what respects, 'democracy' is attainable in modern developed societies.
In order to answer this question I will discuss different definitions and models of modern democracy. I will also consider the meaning of oligarchy and to what extent it is still a valid concept. Electoral procedure and the limitations of party politics also, I feel, play a part in the processes of democracy in the West.
Although Anthony Eden's statement was made in 1928, it is still relevant in C21st Britain. Increasingly people are questioning to what extent they are represented in government and also whether their chosen representatives renege on their promises.
Aristotle originally used the term democracy. It derives from two ancient Greek words, 'demos' meaning 'people' and 'kratos' meaning 'power'. Initially it carried negative connotations and was associated with 'rule by the propertyless and uneducated masses', where the people governed in their own interests, thus it was seen as 'the enemy of liberty and wisdom. The preferred concept was 'polity', where the people governed in the interests of everybody.
The most common type of democracy today is that of representative democracy. It should ideally include 'direct popular participation in government' and work via some kind of 'representative mechanism. It is this kind of democracy that we recognise in many Western democratic governments. The most frequent form of participation is by voting in elections. It is through this system that citizens over the age of 18 have a say about who should represent them in Parliament.
The concept of pluralism is relevant to democracy as it also places a great deal of emphasis on the sharing of political power. It is a political philosophy that embraces difference. An important component of pluralism is that of compromise. This is essential if power is to be shared between groups. Pluralists perceive that politics can be based on anything, not simply social class or economics and thus a pluralist government would consist of representatives of all groups but with no centralisation of power.
Modern democracy is inextricably linked to a number of concepts. A feature when defining 'democracy' is that a government should be removable by the people, who are the ultimate decider of who should govern. This, as I have mentioned, cannot be achieved without popular participation in elections. The government has thus an obligation to explain itself to members of the public, who are entitled to demand government accountability.
Representation is an important and somewhat problematic concept when dealing with modern democracy. As there are a limited number of candidates who stand for election in any given constitution and only one can be elected, it is impossible for everyone in that constituency to feel represented. Added to this, there may be number of candidates, but there are rarely more than three candidates who can realistically expect to be elected. Each of these is likely to belong to parties, which have their own policies about a number of things. It would be unlikely that a person could agree ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Representation is an important and somewhat problematic concept when dealing with modern democracy. As there are a limited number of candidates who stand for election in any given constitution and only one can be elected, it is impossible for everyone in that constituency to feel represented. Added to this, there may be number of candidates, but there are rarely more than three candidates who can realistically expect to be elected. Each of these is likely to belong to parties, which have their own policies about a number of things. It would be unlikely that a person could agree with all of the policies of a party, however, they may agree on key issues that are important to that individual. The result of this may mean that an individual does not chose the person they would most like to represent them but instead 'the lesser of two (sometimes three) evils'. This means that the form of representative democracy we have in the UK 'is, at best, a limited and indirect form of democracy.''(Heywood).
Kavanagh states that it is only really possible for parties to make a difference in government when they are in office for a lengthy period, for example the Conservatives were in power for 18 years, from 1979 to 1997. This would also severely restrict the choice available to voters.
Another problem that results in a limitation in representation is that of participation. As the 2001 election in the UK and the 2000 election in the USA show, the numbers of people who cast their vote decreased, meaning that large sections of society did not even try to be represented in Parliament. It has been asserted that the cause of this was apathy. Although this is widely accepted, it has been said that sections of society felt that none of the candidates could adequately represent them. While either of these may be true, it is difficult to ascertain their motives.
Liberal democracy is the main model of democracy that the West aims to emulate. It was developed mainly by Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill. It has two main variants, the 'protective' variant and the 'developmental' variant. The protective variant infers that we as citizens require protection, from both the interfering state and from individual competition. The aims of this are to allow people to have power via a representative government. This should be provided by regular elections with real competition between parties so as to provide a means of accountability. The Prime Minister should be legally circumscribed through a process of constitutionalism (John Stuart Mill), this is a set of rules governing everyday life and also governing government itself. There would be competing centres of power as large power bases become too powerful and also corrupt.
The developmental variant shares a great deal in common with the protective variant. Examples of this are that there is a market economy with public ownership of sections, the concept of citizenship that would also include factors such as women's rights and the rights of minorities.
A main problem with this is that although it aims to provide an accountable government with responsibility to the people, however, it involves a substantial level of bureaucracy that is not accountable.
It could be argued that no country whose government has secrets can be considered fully democratic. This is because the people cannot make an informed choice regarding who should govern them unless all relevant information is available to them. In America, this is in theory possible due to their Freedom of Information Acts. Under this legislation it is possible for a person to gain access to certain records by submitting a written request.
The UK Official Secrets Act was introduced in 1911 and updated in 1989. It covers, effectively, all government employees. However this is problematic because many government staff only have their attention drawn to this upon leaving the civil service. It has also been criticised on the grounds that its existence serves mainly to cover up political embarrassment rather than simply to protect national security (West, 2000).
The successes of the West are frequently cited as proof that democracy is in itself more effective than autocratic government. However, the type of democracy found in countries such as the USA and the UK may not live up to the ideal of liberal democracy. The model of 'competitive elitism' developed by Weber and also Schumpeter has been said to more accurately describe the type of democracy that operates in the West. It is based on large-scale industrial units and depends on the urban division of labour and anticipates a poorly informed and 'emotional' electorate. The 'elite' works to curb the problem of potential mob rule. They are specialists in damages and rely heavily upon a 'technocracy' - whereby social status is determined by technological skill. It is justified on the grounds that elites are always present in some form. Its main features are the existence of a strong executive, for example the Prime Minister makes decisions with little interference from either ministers or other parts of society. There are elites that compete for the maintenance of stability, in this country it is apparent by observing Parliament and the House of Lords. There is also a bureaucratic system that allows technocrats privacy to develop sensible policy. This is not autocracy but certainly appears to be an example of oligarchy, where a small group, or clique, governs in their own interest. This theory provides us with an understanding of the reality of Western democracy.
Autocracy involves the government of the people by one person. In its original form, it was not negative in itself. However, during the C20th the use of the term democracy has become so widespread that autocracy is seen as its exact opposite. Aristotle used it to denote situations where the people where governed by one person in the interests of the people. It is difficult to think of examples of modern autocracies as many governments proclaim themselves to be democratic, even though this may not be the case. However, for most of the C20th, Russia was ruled by a succession of autocrats. Under them Russia'' position in the world was strengthened but this came about at a cost of tens of millions of lives. This lead to an eventual coup to overcome the totalitarian communist regime.
Another example of an autocracy, which is, perhaps, more successful than the Soviet Union, is the rule of Fidel Castro in Cuba, who has been in power since a military coup in 1959. Despite its success, for example the increase in Cuban life expectancy and the lowering of infant mortality rates since socialism was implemented in Cuba in 1961, roughly 3000 Cubans took to the Straits of Florida in 2000 of which the US Coast Guard interdicted about 35%. Their aim to reach the 'democratic' America.
I have discussed various models of democracy and the links with democracy and aspects of the political system, as well as the role of politics in a pluralist society and also the ideal of openness and how it relates to the reality of a democracy. From this I am able to conclude that I, personally, agree with Anthony Eden's statement.
In many ways, democracy would be best measured by discovering who in society feels represented. I don't feel represented as I didn't vote for my current MP as we moved shortly after the general election. I personally have not felt sufficiently represented in Parliament for some time on many grounds, such as: gender; ethnicity; as a single parent; as a low-grade civil servant and now as a student. Although there are sizeable groups of people who fit these categories they are not represented either, It is on these grounds that I feel that although pluralism is an ideal we don't have it because too many people are just not adequately represented.
The extent to which the population feels represented is especially contentious at the moment as our nation is at war, a war which, if opinion polls and turnouts to peace meetings are to be believed, has only just enough popular support for the government to justify it. I find this particularly relevant to Eden's statement. I feel that there are many incidents in which the government has not behaved democratically and have acted, if not in their own interests, in the interests of the majority of the electorate. One example of this is The War Against Terror in Afghanistan. Since it was begun on the 7th of September I have heard more voices raised in criticism of it than supporting it.
Although I feel it would be unfair to those who live in countries with no kind of democracy to say that the UK is not democratic, I would say that it appears to be the broadening of 'the basis of oligarchy'.
Bibliography:
Beetham, D. ed, 1994, Defining and Measuring Democracy, London, Sage.
Heywood, A. 1999, Political Theory an Introduction 2nd edn, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Jones, B. ed 1999, Political Issues in Britain Today 5th edn, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Bowles, N. 1998, Government and Politics of the United States 2nd edn, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Jones, B, Kavanagh, D, Moran, M and Norton, P. 2001, Politics UK 4th edn, Gosport, Longman.
References:
Kavanagh, D, 1990, Thatcherism and British Politics, 2nd edn, Oxford University. IN Jones et al, Politics UK
Jenkins, S, 1996, Accountable to None, Penguin IN Jones et al, Politics UK
Beetham, D, 1993, Liberal democracy and dthe limits of democratisation in Held, D (ed), Prospects for democracy, Cambridge, Polity, IN Beetham, D, Defining and Measuring Democracy.
