communists is that they do not merely pretend to be democratic: they ‘are
democratic’ (1982: 60–1, 56).
This leads most commentators to say that democracy must be linked to liberalism
so that the term liberal qualifies democracy. A democratic society must respect the
rights of minorities as well as majorities. Otherwise, democracy can become
dictatorial and oppress individuals by imposing majority tastes and preferences on
society as a whole. Built into the American tradition is what one writer has described
as a ‘neurotic terror of the majority’, and new liberals like Hobhouse argued
that checks should be placed upon the British House of Commons to restrain ‘a
large and headstrong majority’ (Hoffman, 1988: 136, 181). In Northern Ireland
Ian Paisley’s conception of a ‘Protestant state of the Protestant people’ may appear
democratic, but it certainly did not facilitate participation by the Catholic minority.The problem of participation
Towards the end of the Second World War, the concept of democracy was redefined
in order to bring it into line, so it was argued, with practical realities. Joseph
Schumpeter (1883–1950), an Austrian economist and socialist, led the way,
contending that the notion of democracy must be stripped of its moral qualities.
There is nothing about democracy that makes it desirable. It may be that in
authoritarian systems – Schumpeter gives the example of the religious settlement
under the military dictatorship of Napoleon I – the wishes of the people are more
fully realised than under a democracy (Schumpeter, 1947: 256).
In Schumpeter’s view, democracy is simply a ‘political method’. It is an
arrangement for reaching political decisions: it is not an end in itself. Since all
governments ‘discriminate’ against some section of the population (in no political
system are children allowed to vote, for example), discrimination as such is not
undemocratic. It all depends upon how you define the demos, the people.
Schumpeter accepts that in contemporary liberal societies, all adults should have
the right to vote, but this does not mean that they will use this right or participate
more directly in the political process. In fact, he argues that it is a good idea if the
mass of the population do not participate, since the masses are too irrational,
emotional, parochial and ‘primitive’ to make good decisions.
The typical citizen, Schumpeter argues, yields to prejudice, impulse and what he
calls ‘dark urges’ (1947: 262). It is the politicians who raise the issues which
determine people’s lives, and who decide these issues. A democracy is more
realistically defined as ‘a political method’ by which politicians are elected by means
of a competitive vote. The people do not rule: their role is to elect those who do.
Democracy is a system of elected and competing elites.
The 1950s saw a number of studies which argued that politics is a remote, alien
and unrewarding activity best left to a relatively small number of professional
activists. Elected leadership should be given a free hand, since ‘where the rational
citizen seems to abdicate, nevertheless angels seem to tread’ (Macpherson, 1977:
92). The model of elitist democracy, as it has sometimes been called, argued the
case for a democracy with low participation.Chapter 5 Democracy 105