Analysis of Three Articles on Democracy: Schumpeter, Habermas & Rawls - Essay Sample

Introduction

Democracy has been viewed in different perspectives by different authors and scholars. Every piece of work that has been published regarding the topic has revealed varied opinions. In this piece of work, we focus on the analysis of three different articles published by different authors then analyze the differences and similarities in their reports.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Two Concepts of Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter

In this essay, Joseph Schumpeter, who was an Australian born political economist, he gives his view on democracy. He attempts to challenge the classical doctrine of democracy that is upheld. Joseph disputes the idea of the common good of the electorate. He starts by describing democracy as the institutional arrangement through which people identify the common good, and the people themselves elect the people they intend to carry out their common good.

It is argued that there is a general common good that a rational mind can easily identify and argue about. This, according to Joseph, does not really exist as primarily some people may want other things on top of what is referred to as the common good. In addition, even if a definite common good existed among the electorate, it would not provide precise answers to individual issues. The utilitarian fathers did not view any of this as they did not foresee the substantial changes that would occur in the economic framework.

In this essay, Schumpeter also much objects the idea of the rule by the people and is of the view that the minimalist model, as brought forward by Max Weber, would be more effective. In the minimalist theory, democracy is viewed as a market structure where leaders compete.In this type of structure, the participatory role of the people is limited, and the system is seen to be much of the government.

According to Schumpeter, democracy is the process in which people elect representatives to carry out their will. His definition of democracy has been viewed to be of the minimalist point of view, where it only focuses on the formation of the government. This decision has been much criticized by scholars who are of the opinion that there is more that democracy holds other than the general view of electing leaders to act as representatives in government. There is more to that as when the leaders are put in the government, and they have the role of carrying out public duties democratically. It is expected that they will act in return to the people who elected them to give them what they desire to have what is generally referred to as a rule for the people and by the people.

The general view of Schumpeter is that voters have limited knowledge of political issues. He then advocates that politicians should make decisions as they are more knowledgeable. In this regard, democracy can be termed to be only revolving among the elite people of the society who hold positions and not the ordinary citizen. Schumpeter compares the political competition to the financial world, which never lacks competition, but everyone still struggles to survive. He also advocates that the political world should also be the same where leaders compete, and the best is elected without necessarily having so much public participation in the making of the decision.

The author has, in many ways, been identified to give credit to the elite people in the society. This is in no way just as regardless of the position one holds in the community, they have the rights and reasons to participate in making decisions publicly. Nonetheless, democracy does entail not only the voting process but also the results that will be delivered after one has been elected and put in office.

Deliberative Democracy and Beyond by John S. Dryzek

According to John, democracy is nowadays viewed from a deliberative approach. The approach differs from other kinds of strategies in that the deliberators have the option of changing their views before making their decision. The essence of democracy is now widely viewed to be deliberation as opposed to voting or representation of constitutional rights and the government. This type of democracy does not give room for much communication, which results in some form of disputes. Some deliberative democrats give a narrow opportunity for people to express themselves, which makes this form of democracy not very useful.

The author discusses the models of democracy that have been adopted in democracy and the critics that the deliberative form of democracy has received. In his view, Dryzek shows that democracy is critical and should be based on established power. Nonetheless, democracy is expected to go beyond borders and in its way, fight the constraints and opportunities that come as a result of democratization. IN this piece of work, John also focuses on insurgent democracy. He discussed the issue that many deliberative democrats view that the most convenient places for deliberation were in liberal states.

Dryzeks' view on deliberative democracy has deemed the critics that have been put forward about it. In his argument, he discusses deliberative democracy and discursive democracy, where he advocates for a deliberative form of democracy. The author also gives his view on the issue of public participating in deciding public policies. He is of the opinion that the oppositional groupings can only be included in the case where their interest is in line with that of the state. If the interest cannot be viewed to be in line, then the inclusion of the grouping has the right to be co-opted.

Also, the author is of the view that even in the case that a particular grouping is included in the decision making policy, the groups' interest may have little bearing on any imperative. This means that the benefits of the group will be weakly represented in the state. If the interest of the group is taking a toll on the state, their outcry will be listened to, but the outcome will be skewed against them. The author gives an example of the gay and lesbian community who might lobby to be allowed to have same-sex marriages for obvious social reasons. Still, in the case the state realizes that it will take a toll on them, they will not allow it in any way. Public policy generally remains under the control of state officers.

Dryzek states that the main alternative to deliberative democracy is a civil society. Civil society generally refers to a self-limiting political association that is allied to the state but is not aiming at obtaining any political seat. He is of the view that civil societies can allow the views of different groups in society being listened to. A demonstration by the civil society gives the government fear of political unrest, and as a result, they respond to the claims and address them.

Generally, civil society can reclaim political or economic power from the government; this can be an excellent remedy to deliberative democracy. It can act as a site for democratization as individuals can air their public views on that platform, and they manage to obtain solutions to the problem jointly. In considering the role of the civil society to democracy, the situation of the state is also critical as the success off the civil society is primarily based on the condition of the country. Civil society will only successfully manage to air its views in a state that is politically and economically stable.

Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy by Joshua Cohen

In this essay, the author focuses on deliberative democracy, which is a type of democracy where the affairs of the public are governed by public deliberation of its citizens. Democratic politics are defined to be that which gives equality among citizens; discussions are focused on the common good of the people and fives an opportunity to shape the interests and desires of the public to enable them to give rise to a common good. In discussing this form of democracy, the author focuses on Rawls's argument and the idea of what an ideal democracy is.

The idea of deliberative democracy is based on the fact that democracy is based on the idea that citizens decide on what is right for them. The citizens of a state publicly come together to get a solution to a problem that they may be experiencing and decide on what is the best solution for the challenge. Deliberative democracy is also believed to have members have a common view about the issues surrounding them and the possible solution.

Nonetheless, members participating in the deliberative type of democracy are believed to view each other as individuals who are in the right capacity to decide what is right for them. The author is, however, of the view that outcomes are only democratic if only they are obtained in a free and reasonable agreement among citizens who are in equal positions. The ideal democratic deliberation is one in which the parties are legally and substantively similar. Besides, the process should be free, and participants allowed to five their reasons for giving preference to a particular idea. The deliberation should also have the aim of coming up with a deliberated consensus among all the citizens.

In regards to the common good, the author is of the idea that common good does not entail the interests and preferences of the participants that come before the making of the deliberations. He firmly believes that the issues and choices that make it past the deliberation and become the basis of claiming social resources comprise the common good. The role of deliberative democracy is to provide a model for institutions and groups to address issues. The institutions or states do not necessarily have to implement the results of the deliberation. The author thus is of the view that despite deliberation being used, institutions and states must have a framework on which decisions and interpretation will be reached.

Different objections to the ideal deliberation have been put forward in this article. Sectarianism has been identified as one of its significant drawbacks. Generally, citizens will always make decisions based on the view of what is the excellent and ideal life for them. This kind of view has been termed to be unstable and unjustified to have the ability to make the ideal decisions. Public deliberation and participation have also been termed to be incoherent, unjust, and irrelevant for making public decisions.

Though public participation is essential as it gives parties the feeling of democracy, it really does not provide the ideal picture of a democratic world. In most cases, public funding tends to be the determinant of which direction to be taken. This then makes the deliberation to be termed as irrelevant as persons do not follow what they have the idea that it is right, but they follow what they have been informed is the right decision.

Connections Between the Views of the Three Authors

The articles analyzed above have a similarity in their opinion regarding the public participation of citizens in public policy. The three authors have noted that in the current leadership, democracy has been given a forefront in the making of public policies. The primary type of democracy discussed is the deliberative type of democracy where citizens are allowed to deliberate on the best decision to make on the challenges they may be facing. The authors have identified that though citizens are given a chance to participate, the common good on which they make the decision is not concrete. The ideas of the citizens on the possible solutions differ, but they are not put into consideration. Nonetheless, the authors have noted that politicians and the elite mostly play a more significant role in influencing the decisions that are reached during public deliberations.

Differences or Disagreements Between the Three Authors

The primary point of disagreement that...