Chapter 5
Democracy
Introduction
It is very difficult to find anyone who disagrees with democracy these days.
Politicians from the extreme left to the extreme right insist that the politics
which they support is democratic in character, so it is no wonder that the term
is so confusing. Although fundamentalists may reject the notion of democracy,
nobody else does, and whether the ruler is a military dictator, a nationalist
demagogue or a liberal, the concept of democracy will be piously invoked in
support of an argument.
So in asking what democracy is, we also have to address the question as to
why it has become almost obligatory for politicians to claim adherence to the
concept.Chapter map
In this chapter we will explore why:- Democracy has been more and more
widely acclaimed from almost all
sections of the political spectrum, so
that it has become increasingly
confusing as a concept. - Liberals traditionally opposed
democracy, even if the universal
assumptions of their theory led their
opponents to argue that liberalism was
democratic in character. - Liberals only reluctantly converted to
democracy in the nineteenth century,
and then only on the assumption that
extending the franchise would not
undermine the rights of property. - After the Second World War politics
was seen as the business of a
decision-making elite, and participation
by the masses was discouraged.- Democracy involves both direct
participation and representation, and
representation needs to be based on a
sense that the representative can
empathise with the problems of their
constituents. - There is a tension between democracy
and the concept of the state, and this
creates problems for Held’s case for a
‘cosmopolitan democracy’. - The question of the state helps to
account for the confusions about the
polity in ancient Greece, and among
conservative critics of liberalism. - A relational view of democracy enables
us to tackle the ‘tyranny thesis’, and to
defend the rational kernel of political
correctness.
- Democracy involves both direct