How, where and why might democracy be promoted? Does it need to be?
In order to answer these questions one must first accurately establish what democracy is. As opposed to theocracy, monarchy and oligarchs, Democracy can most commonly be understood as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, Schudson argues that there are often limitations to this romantic, populist view of democracy in which the figure of ‘the people’ is central and taken as the natural basis for government. He states “conversation that serves democracy is distinguished not by egalitarianism but by norm-governedness and public-ness” (Schudson 1997, pg. 297). This means that democratic talk is among people of different values and backgrounds, thus our heterogeneous society can often lead to ‘potentially explosive conversation’ (Schudson 1997, pg. 306). There are multiple different levels and scales of democratic organization for example, some people will define democracy as something within the governmental/private domain only, where as others want democratic arrangements to be spread well beyond this domain. For instance, McLennan argues “democratic involvement thus comes to pertain not only to parties and parliaments, but also to schools, health-care trusts, and enterprises” (2005, pg. 75). There is also a question of democracy’s minimum criteria, such as regular elections, universal adult suffrage, the rule of law, human rights etc. Democracy can also vary in terms of the mechanisms; institutions and political objectives, for instance the mechanisms of democracy involve both ‘representative’ and ‘direct’ democracy. Furthermore, parliamentary democracy and republican democracy are part of the institutions and forms of representation that are built from socially organised arrangements. Democracy can also be seen in a variety of styles such as liberal democracy, which has a particular focus on the rights of the individual and social democracy that focuses more on the collective social well being of citizens. It is important to recognise that the institutional, practical account of democracy and the romantic, doctrinal account are vastly different ways of understanding democracy. These perspectives are highly political, Hay argues that “once we have cleared away the myths of rule by the people” we see democracy as a set of mechanisms which subjects “large-scale continuing government” of populations to beneficial constraint (Hirst 1990, pg. 28). This relates to the question of ‘where’ might democracy be promoted?
Keane argues that we are moving away from “the old world of representative democracy” into what he promotes as ‘monitory’ democracy (Keane 2009, pg. 79). In our media saturated society we are seeing a rapid growth of “extra-parliamentary, power scrutinising mechanisms” which are enabling participation in democracy through ‘communicative abundance’. No longer is democracy a way of handing the power of elected governments, it is something that when avoiding technological determinism, can go far beyond the boundaries of territorial states. McLennan believes that our understanding of ‘the sphere of government’ has been extended beyond the level of parliament to a sub-national level and even further to voluntary associations, cultural bodies and even as far as personal relationships and family life (McLennan 2005, pg. 74-75). Sally Young’s article, ‘Unions need makeover to suit modern times’ is an example of where democracy might be promoted. She says, “unions will have to fix their internal governance, democratise and modernise their processes” so that they can “reconfigure a more productive relationship that better serves the Australian community” (Sydney Morning Herald 2015). Keane is not championing the Internet at the expense of representative democracy, elections etc. but instead augmenting and decentring them as “democracy is coming to mean more than elections, though nothing less” (Keane 2009, pg. 80). This raises the question of ‘how’ might democracy be promoted?
Increasing participation is one way of how democracy might be promoted. Dahlgren says, “people increasingly do not feel inspired by what the politicians propose that society collectively could and should be” (Dahlgren 2009, pg. 12). With the growing lack of political engagement George Williams’ article ‘Lowering the voting age to 16 would be good for democracy’ provides us with a possible solution suggesting that, “[16] is a better age for gaining the knowledge and forming the habits needed to be an engaged Australian citizen” (The Age 2015). This relates to Hays debate between Civic Republicanism versus Reason of State. On one hand there is the framework of preserving the republic and on the other is “the stabilizing, insulating and crystallizing [of] the political power of a person or group”, both of which are cultural conditions that allow and assist participation (Hay 2007, pg. 8). Not everyone is pro-democracy, we are often in a sense encouraged to ‘hate’ politics. The success of neoliberalism as a definite political project rests on the persuasive relaying assumption that politicians, being rational actors, shouldn’t intervene with decisions about who gets what, but instead leave it in the neutral hands of the market. “Rationality at the level of the individual unit translates into collective irrationality” (Hay 2007, pg. 2). There is an intention to reduce what Schudson calls ‘publicness’ so that there is less debate and less policy of change, ultimately limiting democracy. Market populism, as Dahlgren puts it, is “the view that markets are actually better equipped than states to allocate resources in society” (Dahlgren 2009, p22). The key aspect of this populist perspective is that it sees only a limited part of the larger political agenda; separating society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, whether they’re ‘the elite’ vs ‘the people’ or ‘Reclaim Australia’ vs ‘Muslims’ this view obscures multiple real social divisions and differences (Mudde 2015). Hay argues that anti-politics is detrimental to democracy because change comes from politicising, so in order to enhance and promote democracy, participation plays and integral part.
The difference between a democratic polity and a democratic society plays an important roll in why democracy need be promoted. A democratic polity implements political culture and systems of rule that can only assure electoral democracy. Institutions such as political parties and universities involve political norms such as turn taking and attentive listening, all of which shape the kinds of conversations people have in a democratic polity (McLennan 2005, pg. 72). A democratic society on the other hand is a more methodical democracy where there are far more democratic arrangements. A democratic society does not dismiss the importance of elections but instead suggests “finding new ways of democratic living for little people in big and complex societies” (Keane 2009, pg. 81). The fact that democracy is continually ‘unfinished business’ answers why there is a need for democracy to be promoted. There is a common delusion that there is more ‘direct’ democracy due to the Internet. Although it promotes ‘monitory’ democracy we must not assume the Internet guarantees democracy, but instead it is the ‘publicness’ that does. Democracy must be seen not as a fixed form, but self-governing arrangements that can and will continue to take many forms.
Growing up in a world of ‘overlapping and interlinked media’, the emergence of this communicative abundance has assisted in pulling issues such as same sex relations from the initial private sphere into the public and now recently to the governmental sphere. I strongly agree with Hays observation that when issues are politicised they can change political arrangements and mechanisms of democracy (Hay 2007, pg. 79). Keane says, “no hidden topic is protected unconditionally from media coverage, and from possible politicisation; the more ‘private’ it is, the more ‘publicity’ it seems to get” (Keane 2009, pg. 95). Personally, I see climate change as an import issue that needs public deliberation, however Schudson argues that public-ness entails dealing with social differences. Communicative abundance has no automatic democratic effects; it is difficult to challenge the established power of political systems and authoritarian power that does not take climate change seriously because the mechanisms of democracy need to be extended further. “Communication is constitutive but not determinative” (Greenfield 2015, wk. 7). The reason I believe democracy needs to exist in-between elections is because big issues such as global warming have erupted “not by political parties, elections, legislatures and governments, but principally by power-monitoring networks” (Keane 2009, pg. 91). The growing atmosphere of “anti-politics” especially among people my own age is what I believe a consequence of the political systems in place being unable to meet social expectations. I agree with the point that Dahlgren makes that economic insecurity; low wages and declining social services “are all part of a picture that is disconcerting for the vitality of democracy” (Dahlgren 2009, pg. 26). I also agree with Dahlgren labelling capitalism and democracy as ‘an odd couple’, capitalism routinely produces inequality and equality in my eyes is the most important democratic ideal.
In recent years, there have been numerous examples of populism as a rhetorical, political form used as a way of building and mobilising a constituency. In Europe, far-right parties are scoring significant results in systems of proportional representation. The nationalist far-right group UKIP, lead by Nigel Farage, is a great concern in that the majority deliberately tyrannise and exploit diverse small ethnic groups by acting through democratic process. There are many varieties of populism, the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in the UK has seen Corbyn as “a seasoned advocate of populist verities delivered to the faithful and the seekers with moralistic self-righteousness” (Hayes 2015). Decision making by ‘the people’ does not necessarily mean the result is good. Democracy will continually provide constraints on the inescapable fact we are governed; we will always be a feature of modern nation states. I believe this stresses the importance that politicians should act in the public interest or as Tim Minchin desires, “Australia to have evidence based policy and inspirational rhetoric” (ABC RN, Late night Live, 2015). He argues that decisions should be based on the best possible scientific evidence and our rhetoric should always appeal to the better nature of our population, as opposed to instilling fear. This relates to Waleed Aly’s article on the ‘pub test’ where he speaks of “a politics of the gut” where politicians are unconcerned with details or abstract principles ultimately creating politics of quick opinion (The Age 2015). I agree with Waleed’s argument, I think the idea of ‘the people’ as a unified ‘sovereign people’ just doesn’t exist and at the same time we must be skeptical about what anti-elitists claims are truthfully implying. It is know that “anti-elitist discourse is most commonly used by members of elites themselves in order to promote or to consolidate their own positions” (Hindess & Sawer 2004, pg 4). Consequently, the romantic view of democracy where ‘the people’ are given a voice is insufficient for coming to terms with the actual empirical circumstances of people and the relations of power within which they find themselves. Keane’s states, “democracy is not just the best weapon ever invented for dealing with human arrogance, folly and hubris, but that it also has a deep sensitivity to the facts of uncertainty, complexity and diversity, and that it therefore has a compelling close affinity with the political problem of identifying, handling and resolving so-called ‘wicked problems’”(Kean 2010, pg. 13-14). This highlights the need for democracy to be promoted “Given that unchecked power still weighs down hard on the heads of citizens”(Keane 2009, pg. 96). It is vital that we do away with populist perspectives on democracy and focus on one that which is helpful in guiding the practical arrangements enabling both individuals and groups to participate in decision-making activities that concern them.
Barry Hindess and Marian Sawer (2004), ‘Introduction’, in M. Sawer & B. Hindess (eds) Us and Them: Anti-Elitism in Australia, Perth, API Network, pp. 1-7, 241.
Cas Mudde (2015), ‘Populism in Europe: a primer’ Open Democracy, 12 May, 20th September
Colin Hay (2007), ‘Political disenchantment’, in Why We Hate Politics, Cambridge, Polity, pp. 1-2, 5-10, notes 163, excerpts.
David Hayes (2015) ‘After the Corbyn cult’, Inside Story, 14 September, viewed 19th September
George Williams (2015), ‘Lowering the voting age to 16 would be good for democracy’ Age, 31 May, viewed 19th September < http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lowering-the-voting-age-to-16-would-be-good-for-democracy-20150531-ghdcyq.html>
Gregor McLennan (2005) ‘Democracy’, in T.Bennett L. Grossberg &M. Morris (eds) New Keywords: A Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 72-76
John Keane (nd, 2010?), ‘Anti Democracy Promotion’ from ‘Democracy in the 21st Century – Global Questions’, pp.10-18 (incl. notes), read pp. 10-14. http://johnkeane.net/48/topics-of-interest/democracy-21st-century/democracy-in-the-21st-century-global-questions
John Keane (2009), ‘Monitory Democracy and Media-saturated Societies’, Griffith Review 24: pp. 1-23.
Michael Schudson (1997), ‘Why Conversation is not the Soul of Democracy’, in Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, pp. 297-309, excerpts.
Paul Q Hirst (1990), Representative democracy and its limits, Cambridge, Polity, pp. 22-5, 27-8, excerpt.
Peter Dahlgren (2009), ‘Democracy in difficult times’, in Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 12-26.
Phillip Adams (2015) ‘Tim Minchin – Late Night Live’ ABC Radio National, 19 August,
Sally Young (2015), ‘Unions need makeover to suit modern times’ Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July, viewed 18th September,
Waleed Aly (2015) ‘Dyson Heydon: the pub test is a tool in the politics of cynicism’, Age, 4 September, viewed 17th September