Schmitter and Karl are quick to argue that elections, though a distinctive part of the democratic process, are not as essential to a properly functioning democracy as one would think. While dismissing the idea of electoralism, Schmitter and Karl instead argue that civil society can be the most vital part to a developed, modern democracy. Adherence to interest associations can be seen even in the current Democrats vs. Republicans election. Instead of these interest groups working independently of these political parties, lobbyists and the like work within the plurality system and support the success of one party over another in order to further their own interests. According to Schmitter and Karl, then, the oft-feared behind-the-scenes maneuvering of interest groups is a sign of a healthy democracy in which citizens are expressing their preferences.
The authors, in the last section of their article, also argue against an assumption that many Americans believe to be true. The idea that democracies are automatically “the best” at everything they do, especially on the economic front, comes into question with the contemporary exponential economic growth of the still-authoritarian
1 comment:
What's so enticing about this article is that it we are left in a scary (but, to mimic Professor King, exhilarating) middle ground that throws into questions the very validity of political labels. Clearly, the US is not the ideal of democracy. And, clearly, a country like China is not the ideal of an authoritarian government. As important and easy it is to recognize these facts rationally, the way we conceptualize political realms necessitates the use of easy and specifically defined categories.
Probably the most relevant illustration of this is today's situation in Iraq. Although most people realize that elections are not the sole characteristic of democracy, nor do the guarantee the freedoms of a liberal constitutionalism, they are a powerful image. While the nation's top policymakers surely understand that other components must be present in order to call Iraq a successful state with a stable and liberal democracy, the elections were heralded as a cornerstone. Indeed, the image of hundreds of Iraqis standing in line to vote was extremely emotional - its dissemination touched a nerve in all Americans.
Thus, the politics of democracy is an emotional one in America. Despite the recent backlash of equating freedom and democracy (and liberal capitalism) - due to the unpopularity of the Bush administration and its ideological/religious propagation - Americans cannot shake their long history of belief in democracy as an ideal. In the American case, it's a sentimental attachment rather than a rational analysis that keeps the democratic ideal alive, no matter how divorced from reality it is.
Post a Comment