Democracy
Democracy Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and
has been the primary goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations
of Greece and Roman Empire, all the way to the government of the United States
today. There are a few essential characteristics which must be present in a
political system for it to be even considered democratic. One essential
characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows people to freely make
choices without government intervention. Another necessary characteristic which
legitimates government is that every vote must count equally: one vote for every
person. For this equality to occur, all people must be subject to the same laws,
have equal civil rights, and be allowed to freely express their ideas. Minority
rights are also crucial in a legitimate democracy. No matter how unpopular their
views, all people should enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly.
Public policy should be made publicly, not secretly, and regularly scheduled
elections should be held. All of these elements and government processes are a
regular part of the American government. Yet, even with all the above elements
present in the governmental operations of our country, numerous aspects of the
governmental process undermine its legitimacy, and bring to question if United
States government is really a true democracy. Considering the achievement of
complete democracy is most likely impossible, the political system of American
government is democratic, but its democratic legitimacy is clearly limited in
many respects. One of the first notable aspects of the United States government
which brings the democratic legitimacy into question is the ever-occurring bias
between classes of people that participate in the electoral voting.
Class is
determined by income and education, and differing levels of these two factors
can help explain why class bias occurs. For example, because educated people
tend to understand politics more, they are more likely to vote. In fact,
political studies done at Princeton in 1995 clearly showed that 76 percent of
all voters had college degrees. The same studies have been done in the next
three years and showed the percentage steadily holding at 76 percent, except in
1997, when it dropped down by two percent (Avirett 11). This four to one ration
of college educated voters versus non-college educated voters shows a clear
inequality and bias in the American voting system. This also brings about the
aspect of income. People with high income and education have more resources,
while poor people do not, and instead, tend to have low political efficacy. This
efficacy has been interpreted as feelings of low self-worth in the world of
politics. “Vast majority of the lower class simply feels they do not have enough
power or influence to make a change, thus choosing to exclude themselves from
the electoral process” (Fox 13). Turnout, therefore, is low and since the early
1960s, has been declining overall (Fox 17). Although in theory the American
system calls for one vote per person, the low rate of turnout results in the
upper and middle classes ultimately choosing candidates for the entire nation.
This concludes that because voting is class-biased, it may not be classified as
a completely legitimate process. The winner-take-all system in elections may
also be criticized for being undemocratic because the proportion of people
agreeing with a particular candidate on a certain issue may not be adequately
represented under this system. For example, “a candidate who gets forty percent
of the vote, as long as he gets more votes than any other candidate, can be
elected—even though sixty percent of the voters voted against him(Lind, 314).
Such was the case with president Carter and the opposing Republican candidate
Ford in the 1972 presidential election.
Carter won the presidency by only one
percent in the people’s pole, as well as just barely managing to get by in the
electoral college with 297 votes over Ford’s 241 (Lind 321). This meant that
almost fifty percent of the voting population did not agree with Carter’s views,
yet had to endure them for at least next four years. Even though democracy is
based on the principle of the majority rule, such close elections make the
majority not that major at all, and seriously put a question mark on the
democratic legitimacy of the United States government. Another element of the
United State government that brings controversy to the democratic process and
its legitimacy are the political parties. “Political parties in America are weak
due to the anti-party, anti-organization, and anti-politics cultural prejudices
of the Classical Liberals” (Avirett 23). Because there is no national discipline
in the United States that forces citizens into identifying with a political
party, partisan identification tends to be an informal psychological commitment
to a party. This informality allows people to be apathetic if they wish, and
willingly giving up their input into the political process. For the past fifty
years, the Democratic party has been associated with the lower class people and
minorities, while the Republicans have been supported mainly by upper class
whites (Avirett 28). Still, there is absolutely no substantial stance that each
party takes to show its allegiance to their “assigned” classes. In fact,
Republican presidents like Ronald Regan and George Bush were credited with major
accomplishments in cutting the tax for the lower income families and boosting
the health reforms (Avirett 37). This contradicts the idea that Republicans only
benefit the interests of the upper class citizens, and clearly shows the apathy
of people giving up their input into the political process due to their partisan
identification to a certain party.
Though this apathy is the result of a greater
freedom in America than in other countries, it ultimately decreases citizens’
incentive to express their opinions about issues, therefore making democracy
less legitimate. Private interests are probably the strongest indicators of
illegitimate democracy in the United State government. Private interests distort
public policy making because, when making decisions, politicians must take
account of campaign contributors. An interest may be defined as any involvement
in anything that affects the economic, social, or emotional well-being of a
person (Cerent 9). When interests become organized into groups, then politicians
may become biased due to their influences. Special interests buy favors from
congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices
by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions,
investment banking groups—can pool their money and give up to ten thousand
dollars per election to each House and Senate candidate (Lind 157).
Consequently, those people who do not become organized into interest groups are
likely to be underrepresented financially. This leads to further inequality and,
therefore, greater illegitimacy in the democratic system. The most noted recent
example of a politician being influenced by private interests is none other than
president Bill Clinton. Just three months after winning his second term over
Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential elections, Clinton was under the
investigation under suspicion of acquiring campaign money by renting historical
presidential rooms to wealthy businessmen (Avirett 18). Although he was
acquitted of the charges, the scandal showed that private interest is a serious
issue, and a clear problem in the political system of the United States. Regan’s
administration was known for raising its campaign money from weapon-oriented
factories, which made about 32 percent of his total campaign collection in the
early 1980s (Avirett 15). George Bush’s campaign money came mainly from the
Northern industrial cities, while Carter accepted majority of his money from the
farmers in the South, promising them better trade relations with the troubled
Asian markets in the 1970s (Avirett 22). All these are just a few examples of
politicians taking every advantage possible to gain more money for their
campaigns, undermining the legitimacy of the American government. The method in
which we elect the President, on the other hand, is fairly legitimate.
The
electoral college consists of representatives who we elect, who then elect the
President. Because this fills the requirement of regularly scheduled elections,
it is a legitimate process. The President is extremely powerful in foreign
policy making; so powerful that scholars now speak of the Imperial Presidency,
implying that the President runs foreign policy as an emperor. The President is
the chief diplomat, negotiator of treaties, and commander-in-chief of the armed
forces. There has been a steady growth of the President’s power since World War
II. This abundance of foreign Presidential power may cause one to believe that
our democratic system is not legitimate. However, Presidential power in domestic
affairs is limited. Therefore, though the President is very powerful in certain
areas, the term Imperial Presidency is not applicable in all areas. This was
particularly evident in the last decade, with President Bush and Clinton
exercising the “Imperial Presidency” as far as international affairs were
concerned, yet being limited when it came to domestic issues and approval from
the House and the Senate. Although Bush had strong control over military
measures taken against Sadam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait, he was still in “check”
by congress as far as the oil market was concerned, particularly the domestic
oil production in the United States (Cerent 44). Clinton also had the power,
along with the leaders of NATO, to declare and execute war against raging
Serbia. Still, he was bound by Senate regarding the expenses put into the Balkan
conflict, and had to rely on the congress to approve further monetary
transactions (Cerent 46). These recent examples of division of international and
domestic powers clearly show that “Imperial Presidency” is not applicable in all
areas and is moving towards the right direction, thus legitimizing democracy in
the United States as far as the presidential powers are concerned. The election
process of Congress is also very much legitimate because Senators and
Representatives are elected directly by the people.
Power in Congress is usually
determined by the seniority system. In the majority party, which is the party
which controls Congress, the person who has served the longest has the most
power. The problem with the seniority system is that power is not based on
elections or on who is most qualified to be in a position of authority.
“Congress is also paradoxical because, while it is good at serving particular
individual interests, it is bad at serving the general interest due to its
fragmented structure of committees and sub-committees” (Fox 56). The manner in
which Supreme Court Justices are elected is not democratic because they are
appointed by the President for lifelong terms, rather than in regularly
scheduled elections. There is a non-political myth that the only thing that
Judges do is apply rules neutrally. In actuality, they interpret laws and the
Constitution using their power of judicial review, the power explicitly given to
them in Marbury v. Madison (Lind, 175). Though it has been termed the imperial
judiciary by some, the courts are still the weakest branch of government because
they depend upon the compliance of the other branches for enforcement of the
laws. The best example of judicial weakness can be found in the act of
impeaching the President. Although Richard Nixon never came under a full trial
by the Supreme Court, he was ordered to give out a statement regarding the
Watergate scandal in front of the Supreme Court Justices. Although the Justices
placed a legal hold on all his presidential actions, the hold was not enforced
until the congress reviewed the Courts decision (Lind 112). Even in the Monica
Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton first had to testify in front of a Grand Jury put
together by congress, and then the Supreme Court Justices. In fact, Clinton was
never tried in the Supreme Court, because the congress ruled not to try him for
impeachment in the first place. This brings Judicial power to questions, as well
as the legitimacy of the government. The fact that our government is a
bureaucracy in certain respects also brings about many controversial aspects
which question its legitimacy. The bureaucracy is not democratic for many
reasons.
The key features of a bureaucracy are that they are large, specialized,
run by official and fixed rules, relatively free from outside control, run on a
hierarchy, and must keep written records of everything they do. “Bureaucracies
focus on rules, but their members are unhappy when the rules are exposed to the
public” (Lind 171). Bureaucracies violate the requirement of a legitimate
democracy that public policy must be made publicly, not secretly. To be hired in
a bureaucracy, a person is required to take a civil service exam. Also, people
working in bureaucracies may be fired under extreme circumstances. This usually
leads to the Peter Principle; that people who are competent at their jobs are
promoted until they are in jobs in which they are no longer competent (Lind
175). Policy making, on the other hand, should be considered democratic for the
most part. The public tends to get its way about sixty percent of the time, as
it was proven in the Princeton studies in 1995 (Avirett 13). The studies were
based on a simple principle of what people demanded from the government in the
nationwide polls, and what they got in the near future. In the end, sixty
percent of all issues were addressed and successfully solved by the government (Avirett
13). Because one of the key legitimating factors of a government is a connection
between what it does and what the public wants, policy making can be considered
sixty percent legitimate. Such a percentage puts the American political system
and its democratic legitimacy into perspective of being legitimate for the most
part, but not completely. Even though the individual workings of the American
government may not all be particularly democratic, they do form a political
system that prevails in its democratic ways at the end. Considering that
achieving true democracy is almost impossible, the United States government is
coming close and is striving to get closer as the years go by. It is true that
the people who run for and win public office are not necessarily the most
intelligent, best informed, wealthiest, or most successful business or
professional people. At all levels of the political system,…it is the most
politically ambitious people who are willing to sacrifice time, family and
private life, and energy and effort for the power and celebrity that comes with
public office (Dye 58-59). But in the end, it is the choice of people that
decides whether these ambitious individuals are worthy of their vote and their
representation. The United States government might not be a perfect example of
democracy, but it certainly has the main democratic principles that allow for a
political system to strive for as true of a democracy as possible.
|
