Joan Rivers's famous one-line introduction to talk show interviewers and
stand-up performances is a powerful reminder that certain subjects might be
dangerous to discuss in polite company. Whether the United States political
system is a democratic one is such a subject.
Everything we Americans have learned since infancy
suggests that the United States is a democracy. In fact, the United States
political system, we are told repeatedly, is the gold standard for the world.
Distinguished data source Freedom House claims that freedom can only exist in
democratic political systems. Democratic systems are those in which governments
are accountable, the rule of law exists, and associations and speech are
guaranteed to all. Polity IV, another data-based source of information about
governments, has a more refined definition of democracy: procedures by which
citizens can express their preferences about leaders and policies and there
exists both constraints on executive power and guarantees of civil liberties.
University of Iowa Political Science Professor
William M. Reisinger prepared a chart summarizing the key components of
democracy reflected in the writings of political philosophers (such as
Aristotle), politicians (John C. Calhoun), skeptics (H. L. Mencken), and a
variety of contemporary political scientists. He appends to his chart 25
quotations that illustrate variations in the understanding of the concept
“democracy.” Reisinger identifies five emphases in most writings on the
subject.
“1)it is a dangerous form of government; 2)it
includes genuine competition for power; 3)it permits mass participation on a
legally equal footing; 4)it provides civil and other liberties that restrict
the sphere of state power within the society; or 5)it promotes widespread
deliberation about how to make and enforce policy so as to promote the common
good” (William M. Reisinger, “Selected Definitions of Democracy,” uiowa.edu).
Reflecting on these five elements of democracy might
lead to a more sober understanding of the United States political system than
what most people learned in school (from kindergarten through graduate programs
in political science). Particularly looking at Reisinger’s last four features might
suggest that the United States does not meet broadly endorsed criteria for a
democracy.
Does the political system afford “genuine
competition for power?” The answer is no for a variety of reasons. Campaigns
for office from local through federal positions require enormous amounts of
money. Supreme Court decisions have enshrined the right of the wealthy (often
the one percent) to pour unlimited financial resources into elections. Koch
Brothers affiliates have even invested in local school board elections to
influence school curricula and give support to the privatization of education.
Funding of elections is reinforced by rules and
regulations limiting political participation to two parties. Also states, from
Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan to the South and Southwest, have imposed
rulings making it harder for citizens to vote. Some voter suppression laws,
sometimes overturned by courts because of their egregious violation of
constitutional principles, have survived serious challenges (such as the
Supreme Court decision to allow the Texas disenfranchisement of an estimated 600,000
minority voters) at least for the next election. In the end money,
institutionalized procedures, state laws, and judicial decisions have
undermined the possibility of competition for political power.
Everything that has been said above limits equal and
mass participation in politics. Money, power, institutions, and media
propaganda conspire to limit political participation and the entire weight of the political system works to impair workers,
minorities, young people, and the elderly. In the 1970s, Political
Scientist Samuel Huntington wrote a paper for the then influential foreign
policy organization, The Trilateral Commission, warning of the “danger of
democracy.” The danger he identified all across the globe was the “excess of
democracy.” In other words, in the 1970s, (and one would only surmise the
condition is worse today) too much participation in politics would challenge
the status quo and stability.
Reisinger pointed out that some definitions of
democratic states (on his chart six of 25 entries) highlight “civil and other
liberties that restrict the sphere of state power within the society.” There is
much anecdotal evidence to suggest that local police have garnered vastly
increased power to arrest, charge, kill, and incarcerate more citizens on a per
capital basis than most countries in the world. The most overrepresented
targets of the expanding police state are young, African/American males but the
class character of the criminal justice system has been prevalent as well. In
addition, federal government surveillance, criminal conduct by the National
Security Agency, and long-standing practices of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to undermine and crush dissent have been significant features of
the historical landscape.
Finally, Reisinger has found some references in
discussions of democracy to “deliberation” on public policy to “promote the
common good.” Less than ten media conglomerates control most of the information
consumed by the citizenry and think tanks generating “expert” analyses are
bought and paid for by corporations, government agencies, billionaires, and
political parties.
In sum, the Joan Rivers one-liner is critical now.
We need to talk about the reality that the United States is not a democracy.
And as a few commentators have pointed out, democracy is dangerous. It is
dangerous because the people will be able to participate in the decisions that
affect their lives; class, race, and gender will not exclude participation in
politics; and the whole reason for democratic institutions is to “promote the
common good.” As Pennock put it the ideal democracy is one characterized by:
“Government by the people, where liberty, equality
and fraternity are secured to the greatest possible degree and in which human
capacities are developed to the utmost, by means including free and full
discussion of common problems and interests.” (Roland J. Pennock, Democratic Political Theory, Princeton
Press, 1979, 7).
To be clear the United States is not a democracy. Progressives who
believe it is fool themselves at the peril of the country. BUT, rather than
disengagement, they should struggle all the harder “inside and outside”
conventional political processes to achieve it. And struggles for equality,
justice, and a sustainable environment are also struggles for democracy.
