Clare Sammells
Miguel Centellas
Maria Bruno
Sara Simon
Chris Exner
Kate McGurn Centellas
Claudine Vallières
Jonathan
Andres Vaughan
Donna YatesSteven T. Jones just posted an article at the San Francisco Bay Guardian questioning whether elections are the only standard for democracy. (He also posted it on his blog, where he’s written more about his recent trip to Bolivia). I think many of us share the feeling that elections, while important, are not enough to ensure democratic process. I was also impressed with the political mobilizations I witnessed in Bolivia, not only by their size but by the fact that the government takes them seriously, unlike in the United States where such demonstrations are often not even reported on (in part because we have such a great infrastructure that it is very difficult for any group to shut down the main highway, for example).
Jones is correct in saying that the U.S. can learn something from Bolivia about the different ways in which democracy can function and thrive. Given our concerns in the U.S. about electronic voting, campaign funding, and the two-party system, it’s worth a look at how other countries have addressed the challenge of ensuring that all citizens have some say in how their nation is run.
Filed under: Politics
Just want to make sure to state that virtually no political scientist since the 1980s has argued that elections are the only standard for democracy. In fact, thinking that is known as the “electoralist fallacy.” But elections — when they are free, fair, and competitive — are essential (though not sufficient) for modern liberal representative democracy. It’s also important to note, of course, that mass public mobilization is not inherently democratic either (just ask Jews in 1930s Germany). There are a number of ways in which democracy can be improved. But we need to remember that modern democracy is not just about surrendering to the will of the majority (even ignoring the Dahlian argument that majorities don’t actually exist in any society), but also about protecting minority rights, the rule of law, civil liberties (even for people we detest), and other such things. And it’s equally important to remember that “having a say” is not the same as “getting my way” (too often we judge democracy on the basis of the latter). Adam Przeworski once gave the most succinct definition of democracy: “Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections.” Profound.
Miguel, I agree with you 100%. I also hope we can agree that 1930s Germany would not be a useful comparison case for 2008 Bolivia.
The U.S. does not have a perfect democracy. Neither does anyone else, because such a thing doesn’t exist. We also have to acknowledge that Bolivia has a long history of the majority of its population being excluded from governmental decisions unless they do something drastic (like, in recent years, blockade). Is that ideal? Probably not; most Bolivians I talked to saw blockades as a necessary action that caused them a lot of trouble. Is this better than the U.S. system, where money determines who gets heard or, for that matter, elected? That’s open for debate (and no, I’m not taking sides by raising the question).
I assumed that political scientists know better than to equate mere elections with democracy. All the more reason for us to seriously examine how other nations go about the process of democracy.
Actually, the case of 1930s Germany has been used by many social scientists w/o launching into wild lunatic rants (which, I suspect, is your fear). What I meant was “Weimar Germany” to be more precise. The fall of of the Weimar Republic has long been used as a launching point to consider the causes of democratic breakdown more widely. Arturo Valenzuela uses it to compare with 1973 Chile. Sheri Berman uses it to challenge the neo-Tocquevillian “social capital” theory (arguing that not all civil society organizations are “good” for democracy). Charles Tilly uses it as a warning about “social movements” as not always inherently “liberal.” The point is to be aware that Hitler’s rise and the Hollocaust were NOT a pre-determined events. A set of social structures, political choices, and other conditions were necessary. Many social scientists use 1930s Germany as a warning … we worry when we see those structures, choices, etc. play out in other contexts. Usually, the end result is rather bad for people and other living things.