Pols Ch.3.docx

Chapter 3: Democracy and Our Relationship to the State Overview This chapter has two main goals: firstly, introducing key aspects of democratic theory, and secondly, examining the argument that democracy is the primary basis for political obligation—exploring the moral reasons behind obeying state l...

Chapter 3: Democracy and Our Relationship to the State Overview This chapter has two main goals: firstly, introducing key aspects of democratic theory, and secondly, examining the argument that democracy is the primary basis for political obligation—exploring the moral reasons behind obeying state laws. The chapter delves into the historical evolution of the term democracy, discusses the debate between protective and participatory theories, and considers deliberative and cosmopolitan democracy. Additionally, it explores how perceptions of the legitimacy of laws and institutions relate to our connection with the state. The implications of democracy as the foundation for political obligation are explored, including the consideration of minority rights in the context of the majoritarian principle. Democracy and the Common Good As with many political concepts, it is difficult to find a definition of democracy with which everyone can agree. Certainly, most people feel that democracy is a “good” system of government, better than the Assad dictatorship in Syria or the violent type of fundamentalist rule promoted by the former Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Democracy is often linked to the concept of the "common good," a term with contested definitions in political philosophy. Historically, pre-modern theorists, like Greek philosophers, tied it to virtuous living in an idealized political community. Liberal thinkers like John Locke proposed achieving the common good through improved political conditions, allowing individuals to pursue personal goals, including property ownership. Others, adopting a collectivist approach, emphasized individual sacrifice for the greater benefit of the population, reflecting utilitarianism, notably associated with Jeremy Bentham. The understanding of the common good varies, with divergent perspectives on its meaning. In this passage, various perspectives on the concept of the common good are discussed. Karl Marx is mentioned as linking representations of the common good to political power, with the ruling class shaping it to maintain their privilege. Totalitarian systems, exemplified by Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany, defined the common good according to the state's interests, subordinating individual and group rights. In the 1980s, the left criticized the individualism promoted by right-of-center leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, contrasting it with their view of the common good. On the right, the common good is described as treating everyone equally, irrespective of gender, race, or religion, leading to criticisms of affirmative action as conflicting with this idea. In a democracy, the common good typically refers to policies and institutions that benefit the entire population or a significant majority. This involves providing additional support to marginalized groups affected by issues like racism, sexism, classism, or other forms of discrimination. Excessive emphasis on individualism, as argued by Johnson, may hinder citizens from uniting to build a cohesive democracy with shared goals and values. According to Galston, the common good is crucial for community formation, requiring people to desire living together as a unified entity and recognize a shared destiny. Communities face failure when this condition is not met or ceases to be fulfilled. Ornstein (2013) presents a civic definition of the common good, emphasizing people living in a democracy. According to this perspective, the common good is the collective well-being of ordinary citizens who collaborate for public purposes. Individual citizens hold responsibilities to the community, and, in return, the community safeguards, defends, and uplifts its members. This reciprocal relationship is facilitated by civic institutions, encompassing both those integral to governance and those associated with civil society. The common good can also be tied to elements of good governance, as defined by the United Nations. Despite the widespread adoption of democratic systems globally, as observed more than three decades after the Soviet Union's collapse, there has been a decline in the quality of democracies. In 2020, Freedom House reported this decline, noting that even in the United States, there were issues. The COVID-19 pandemic further worsened existing problems and introduced new challenges. Repressive regimes used the pandemic to serve their political interests, sometimes at the expense of public health and basic freedoms. Even open societies faced pressure to accept restrictions that could persist beyond the crisis, potentially having lasting effects on liberty (Freedom House, May 2020). There is a global trend of declining support for democracy, particularly among the youth who are growing disenchanted with mainstream political options. Recent elections in Austria, Japan, India, and the Philippines have seen dominant parties advocating for socially conservative, ethnically majoritarian, and country-first policies, often led by overtly populist figures. Surprisingly, the young demographic is identified as the biggest supporters of such leaders. Support for democracy has been on the decline for several years, as indicated by a 2020 Pew Research Center study covering attitudes toward democracy in 34 countries. The study reported reduced enthusiasm about democracy, with significant drops observed in long-standing democracies like India and Israel (Tharoor, 2020; Howe, 2017). The expansion of competitive elections has led to a rise in illiberal democracies, also known as competitive authoritarian regimes or semi-democracies. In such systems, elections may not be overtly rigged, but elected rulers show little interest in safeguarding individual rights like free speech, making it challenging for the opposition to organize. The control of media and state institutions allows rulers to manipulate electoral outcomes. In 2019, there was a global decline in democracy, according to Freedom House, with setbacks surpassing gains. The report highlighted democratic decline in the United States under Trump and in India, where Hindu nationalism played an increasing role. The overall trend suggested that these cases were part of a global phenomenon where elected leaders distance themselves from traditional norms, claim to represent a more authentic popular base, and use confrontations to justify extreme policies against minorities and pluralism. The 2020 report emphasized that India and the US, while prominent, were not alone in drifting from the ideals of liberal democracy (Freedom House, May 2020). CASE STUDY BOX 3.1 Singapore as an Illiberal Democracy The city-state of Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1963 and established democratic political institutions, including elections and a Westminster system. However, the People's Action Party (PAP) has consistently won control of parliament since independence, and one individual, Lee Kuan Yew, served as prime minister from 1959 to 1990. The current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, is Lee Kuan Yew's son and has been in office since 2004. Despite the appearance of democracy, opposition parties argue that Singapore is essentially a one-party state. The country is considered by some as an illiberal democracy, combining elements of democracy and authoritarianism. In 2020, Freedom House labeled Singapore as "partly free" with a democracy score of 50/100, indicating constraints on political pluralism and limitations on freedoms of expression, assembly, and association (Freedom House, 2020). In Singapore, while elections are not overtly rigged, the People's Action Party (PAP) faces accusations of manipulating the political system. This manipulation involves censorship through state-owned broadcasting media, strict control of newspapers, and the illegality of satellite receivers. Additionally, gerrymandering, altering constituency boundaries to favor the ruling party, and the use of the judicial system against opposition politicians have been criticized. Liberal democratic values such as freedom of speech are significantly restricted, and the penal system, including capital punishment, is considered draconian. The country prioritizes economic development over democratic development, with substantial progress in the former (Freedom House, 2020). Democracy, though subject to varying interpretations, fundamentally involves a system of rule where political power is broadly distributed, resting in some way with the people and emphasizing political equality. Various interpretations of democracy exist, with Lively (1975) outlining seven possibilities: All individuals should participate in legislating, deciding on general policy, applying laws, and governmental administration. All individuals should be personally involved in crucial decision-making, such as determining general laws and policies. Rulers should be accountable to the ruled, justifying their actions and being removable by the people. Rulers should be accountable to representatives chosen by the people. Rulers should be chosen directly by the people. Rulers should be chosen by representatives elected by the people. Rulers should act in the best interests of the people (Arblaster, 2002; Lively, 1975). Lively contends that interpretations 1 to 4 can be considered democratic, while interpretations 5 to 7 cannot (pp. 33–42). The key distinction lies in accountability—interpretations 5 to 7 lack provisions for rulers to be removed by the ruled. For interpretation 5, while choosing rulers through direct popular vote seems democratic, Lively argues that this alone is insufficient. Without mechanisms for the people to remove rulers if dissatisfied, it lacks a crucial aspect of accountability. True democracy, in Lively's view, involves not just the selection of leaders but also the ability of the people to hold them accountable. For interpretation 6, representatives may not adequately represent the changing will of the people over time and does not guarantee that the people interests are truly reflected. Notably, interpretation 7 allows for the inclusion of government types, like communist regimes, which may not have competitive elections but claim democracy based on rulers promoting social and economic equality (Macpherson, 1966, pp. 12–22). Lively argues that claim #7 is a logical mistake since achieving positive outcomes (like social and economic equality) doesn't necessarily validate the democratic nature of a political system. The core argument is that even if a government attains desirable outcomes, it doesn't automatically make how rulers are chosen democratic. While regular competitive elections may be effective in ensuring rulers act in the interests of the people, achieving political equality might require economic equality. However, Lively notes that a benign dictatorship genuinely serving the people is not impossible. Yet, illiberal democracies like Singapore may lack true accountability. Liberal democracies face criticism for potential conflicts between majoritarian decision-making and protecting individual rights, adding complexity to the democratic perspective (Lively, 1975; Macpherson, 1966). Lively's first four types of democracy encompass variations in political systems, with the first two being forms of direct democracy and the latter two forms of representative democracy. Direct democracy involves the people ruling directly, more feasible in small-scale societies, while representative democracy is a more practical proposition for larger societies. The distinction between stronger and weaker versions of representative democracy depends on a country's political culture and institutional history. In representative democracy, individuals are theoretically chosen by the people to represent their interests. For instance, Canadian Members of Parliament (MPs) historically asserted their independence from constituents to vote in the country's best interests, although party discipline in the Westminster system often guides their voting. In the United States, representatives in the lower house of Congress are elected to reflect their constituents' views, even if it conflicts with party positions. Both systems have drawbacks: Canadian MPs may sometimes disregard voters' wishes in favor of party leaders, while American Representatives historically prioritize local influences, leading to less party unity. However, with growing polarization in U.S. politics, party affiliation is gaining importance, and bipartisan cooperation is less frequent. Each system presents its challenges and complexities (Lively, 1975). Historical Background Democracy originates from the Greek words "demos" (citizens) and "kratos" (power or rule), referring to the governance of ancient Greek city-states. While some contemporary democratic theorists idealize the participatory model of these city-states, it's crucial to recognize that their system excluded and exploited certain groups, such as women, slaves, and foreigners. The political engagement of privileged male citizens was made possible by the labor of these excluded individuals. In ancient Greek city-states, direct democracy was practiced, where citizens participated directly in decision-making. Specialized tasks were assigned to a smaller group of officeholders, chosen through regular rotation by the rest of the citizens. Jury service was also a common practice to ensure all citizens had the opportunity to administer justice. However, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle criticized democracy, viewing it as a form of mob rule, although, as we saw in the Introduction, Aristotle did consider democracy less bad than tyranny and oligarchy. Later political thinkers, including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the 17th century, also did not see democracy as a desirable form of government. Democracy is not strictly a European concept, as some theorists suggest. Contrary to such assumptions, democratic ideas have diverse origins, with North America, specifically the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations or the Iroquois Confederacy), playing a significant role. Before colonization, the Haudenosaunee lived peacefully under the "Great Law of Peace," influencing democratic norms in North America. Ronald Wright argues that Benjamin Franklin, despite using racist language, admired the Great Law and questioned why "ignorant savages" could establish such a successful union while English Colonies struggled with a similar endeavor. The Peacemaker's Great Law, formulated by the Haudenosaunee, was a thoughtful combination of elective and hereditary rights, incorporating checks and balances. It established a matrilineal and partly matriarchal Confederacy Council of fifty royaneh (sachems or lords), chosen by clan mothers. Decision-making within the council involved a series of small caucuses, reaching consensus before final decisions. While sachems, who were male and held lifelong positions, were elected, women had the authority to depose them. Additionally, individuals of exceptional merit could be elected to the council as Pine Tree Chiefs. Accounts of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy's origins, described as "part constitution, part mythology," were orally transmitted for centuries before being collected and translated by individuals like Seneca ethnologist Arthur C. Parker in the early 20th century. Parker highlighted features such as the right of popular nomination, recall, and woman suffrage, flourishing in the old America long before similar concepts gained attention in the new America of the white invader. These challenges derogatory labels of Indians and Iroquois as savages, emphasizing the advanced democratic principles present in their historical governance. Unlike the democracy of ancient Athens, which has long since disappeared, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Six Nations) continues to practise traditional forms of governance, although subject to the (sometimes questionable) oversight of the Canadian state. The French and American Revolutions The French and American revolutions of the 18th century marked a turning point in world history in favor of democracy. Both revolutions aimed to establish democratic principles, drawing inspiration from European and First Nations models. In the United States, framers of the Constitution, particularly James Madison, sought to eliminate monarchy but were equally concerned about the risks of majority rule. To mitigate this, they established a directly elected legislature, the House of Representatives, while imposing strict limits on its power. Legislative authority was divided between the House and the Senate, with Senate members appointed by state legislatures. Additionally, two other branches of government were created—the executive, led by the president, and the judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court. Judges, appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Then, only half of one of the three branches of government was truly democratic. The 19th-Century Move toward Democracy By the 19th century, democracy was becoming more popular in both theory and practice. Many countries began the long journey toward universal suffrage. In theoretical terms, the utilitarian theory of democracy was extremely influential; see Box 3.2. KEY CONCEPT BOX 3.2 The Utilitarian Theory of Democracy The utilitarian theory of democracy, originating in the 19th century, was developed by British theorists Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill. Initially, Bentham was indifferent to democracy, believing an enlightened despot could equally pursue utilitarian goals for the greatest happiness. However, his perspective shifted when the British government did not implement his proposed reform schemes, leading him to reconsider the importance of democracy in achieving utilitarian aims. Bentham and Mill asserted that individuals in government, if unrestrained, would prioritize their personal pleasure rather than working towards the overall greatest happiness. To counter this tendency, they advocated for democracy as a means of holding the government accountable to the people. From the utilitarian viewpoint, elections function as protective measures, ensuring that decision-makers consider the preferences of the populace in their pursuit of the greatest happiness. C.B. Macpherson highlighted that utilitarian theory was the initial effort to implement democracy in a class-divided capitalist industrial society. This theory laid the foundation for liberal democracy, connecting democratic principles with the liberal values associated with the industrial middle class. The union of democracy and capitalism posed a significant challenge in reconciling political equality with economic inequality. In the 19th century, many property owners were concerned that granting universal suffrage would lead to demands for increased economic and political equality, potentially jeopardizing their privileges. This tension reflects the ongoing struggle to find a balance between democratic governance and economic disparities in capitalist societies. The introduction of universal suffrage in the early 20th century did not result in a significant shift towards a socialist political agenda. According to Macpherson and other left-of-center academics, this lack of transformation was attributed to trade union and left-of-center political leaders cooperating extensively with factory owners and government officials, consequently diluting workers' rights. Other theorists suggest that the existence of economic elites does not guarantee that specific individuals or groups consistently wield power. Instead, the presence of free and fair competition among organized groups in society can contribute to a more balanced political landscape. This multiplicity of pressure groups leads to diverse democratic claims, creating what Robert Dahl termed a "polyarchy," where various minorities can exert influence in the political process. In the past three decades, the democratic landscape has been transformed with a doubling of the number of states holding competitive elections. This is partly a reflection of the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the emergence of independent states in eastern Europe, but the trend can also be seen in southern Europe (Greece, Portugal, and Spain), Latin America (Chile), parts of Africa (Botswana), and Asia (Malaysia). Competing Theories of Democracy By the mid-20th century, the most important dispute in academic political theory was between two competing theories of democracy. On one hand is what has come to be known as the “participatory” theory. On the other is democratic elitism, also known as the “protective” theory (see Box 3.3). This theory became prominent in the post-1945 period and is associated with the Austrian economist and sociologist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), who articulated it in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1961 ). Joseph Schumpeter reacted to the perceived inevitable role of elites in modern politics. While acknowledging the arguments put forth by Italian elite theorists discussed in Chapter 1, Schumpeter diverged from their conclusion that democracy is essentially a facade. Instead, he argued that democracy could coexist with elitism. According to Schumpeter, the classical model of democracy is both unrealistic and undesirable. He argued that mass participation is not a significant aspect of modern democratic societies, as many people are content to let political elites handle politics. Schumpeter deemed mass participation undesirable because the masses are often perceived as irrational, may hold authoritarian values, and could be swayed by charismatic and dictatorial leaders. His writings coincided with the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy, where figures like Hitler and Mussolini garnered consent, some of it enthusiastic, from a substantial portion of the population. In these circumstances, elites were seen not as a threat to democracy but as protectors against the authoritarian values of the masses. Schumpeter proposed a modification to the classical theory of democracy, advocating for a narrower concept where people choose their representatives, but most decision-making authority rests with a political elite. According to Schumpeter, what maintains democratic elements in this system is the competition between elites. In this model, voters don't directly select between different policy sets but rather choose between different teams of leaders who then determine which policies to implement. This perspective aligns with aspects of contemporary political systems in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Recent research by political scientists Alex Marland, Thierry Giasson, and Andrea Lawlor (2018) suggests that while traditional business and political elites in Canada have remained relatively constant, a new and growing class of "digital elites" is emerging. These are ordinary citizens with blogs and websites who actively engage with politics and society, introducing new sources of influence and power. Schumpeter's elite theory of democracy, influential in political science for approximately two decades after World War II, was supported by an "economic theory of democracy" that extended the earlier utilitarian model. These theories, categorized as "protective" models of democracy, aim to make political leaders accountable to the preferences of the voters. They are primarily focused on democracy as a mechanism for maximizing voter utility, emphasizing the alignment of political decisions with the wishes of the electorate. The classic "participatory" model stands in contrast to the protective model, viewing participation as enriching and contributing to the development of civic values and well-informed citizens. While the protective theory regards participation as a burden individuals endure solely to hold politicians accountable, the classic model values participation for its positive impact on individuals. According to this perspective, citizens who engage in political participation become more virtuous and intelligent, gaining an understanding of the importance of cooperation. Their sense of self-worth increases, as does their status in the eyes of others. The participatory model, rooted in the practices of Greek city-states and the political philosophies of figures like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and George Douglas Howard Cole, experienced a resurgence in the 1960s. During this period, a new generation of radical democratic theorists, such as Bachrach, Duncan & Lukes, and Pateman, argued that elite theorists had lost sight of the true essence of democracy by neglecting participation. They advocated for a revival of political participation as a core principle of rule by the people. These ideas coincided with the rise of mass movements in both North America and Europe during the 1960s, including movements against nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War, and in support of grassroots environmentalism. Participatory forms, as discussed in the previous chapter, can also be seen in the mass environmental movements of 2019, promoting citizen organization and action to pressure governments into acting against a climate emergency. In the 2019 election, climate change was one of the key issues identified by Canadian voters. Indigenous peoples in what is now North America practiced participatory democracy long before colonization. Howard Adams highlights the clan as the central unit of governance, representing a kinship group with common ancestry. Clans were characterized by strong bonds of solidarity and mutual assistance, each having its own democratic council composed of both men and women that selected and dismissed leaders. Leadership roles were not entrenched or permanent; leaders held office only for specific duties and durations. For example, a leader might be chosen for a particular buffalo hunt due to their expertise, and their authority would be respected only for that specific task. At the conclusion of the hunt, the leader ceased to hold authority, with these positions having no permanence or authority beyond the specified duty. In support of Indigenous participatory democracy, Neta Crawford cites William Fenton, who noted that Haudenosaunee leaders or chiefs "enjoyed great prestige but little power." This implies that while chiefs were respected for their abilities, they lacked the authority to compel agreement from others. The decision-making process within Indigenous governance was characterized by collective decision-making and consensus. According to Crawford, the Western perspective often found this process frustrating due to its slowness, involving consultation at every level of tribal authority. Decisions were expected to be based on consensus, requiring unanimous approval for all actions, regardless of the time it took. James Miller, in his work on Indigenous–settler relations in Canada, draws some key distinctions between two models of decision-making: “Whereas the adversarial political process among non-Natives is based on the assumption that the product of a clash of ideas will be the position that is best for the group, or the policy equivalent of truth, in most Aboriginal societies the ‘truth is the consensus that the group reaches after lengthy consultation and reflection’” (Miller, 2004, pp. 74–75). It suggests that when different ideas or perspectives collide in a debate or conflict, the resulting position or policy that emerges is believed to be the most beneficial for the entire group. This assumption is rooted in the idea that through the competition and confrontation of diverse viewpoints, the group can arrive at a position that is not only well-informed but also represents an approximation of truth or the most objectively advantageous course of action for the collective. These examples suggest that Western forms of democracy may only go part way toward achieving accountable decision-making that is acceptable to the group. Two observations can be made about these competing models of democracy. Firstly, if democracy is defined as political equality, then the elite theory does not align with the essence of democracy. Secondly, proponents of the participatory model need to demonstrate the desirability and feasibility of their version of democracy. Advocates argue that people can be motivated to participate more, and with increased engagement, individuals will become more skilled at participating. They also contend that political apathy is a result of insufficient participation in decision-making in the workplace, emphasizing the significance of industrial democracy (Pateman, 1970). Indigenous examples further illustrate that norms of participation, consultation, deliberation, and consensus-seeking can evolve over many centuries. Advocates of the participatory model need to demonstrate the feasibility of participation, and technological advancements may play a role in facilitating political involvement. Developments such as the Internet, mobile phones, and interactive television technology, as well as the use of apps for phones and tablets, may make e-voting a convenient and attractive method for consulting the electorate and making decisions. Additionally, increasing participation could involve a greater use of referendums, where electors directly vote on specific issues. Referendums, a form of direct democracy, have been employed in various countries, including Canada (although infrequently), and are particularly common in Switzerland and the United States. KEY QUOTE BOX 3.4 Canada’s Three Referendums over a Century In Canada, the federal government has conducted three referendums (or plebiscites). The first took place in 1898 on Prohibition, with 44% of the electorate participating, resulting in a narrow victory for the "yes" vote at 51% over the "no" vote at 49%. The second referendum occurred in 1942 on conscription, where the Liberal government asked Canadians about releasing the commitment to avoid conscripts for overseas military service. Over 60% of voters favored conscription, but in Québec, approximately 72–73% voted against it. The third referendum in 1992 was on the Charlottetown Accord, tied to negotiations between provinces. The threat of a Québec sovereignty referendum had made the federal referendum a strategic tool. The Charlottetown Accord was ultimately rejected, with 44.8% in favor and 54.2% against, involving six provinces and one territory (Lemieux & Noël, 2016). Deliberative Democracy Deliberative democracy, stemming from the notion of democratic participation, emphasizes the importance of public discussion and reflection in addition to the act of voting. Influenced by the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, this model contends that true democracy goes beyond providing opportunities for political choices; it necessitates the development of choices through deliberation. Advocates argue that public debate enhances both the rationality and legitimacy of decisions, ensuring that political choices remain open to discussion and revision. Deliberative democracy, as described by Cunningham, goes beyond mere voting, and aims to serve a purpose beyond registering preferences. Deliberative democracy is distinct from direct participatory democracy, with its advocates expressing skepticism about the feasibility of direct democracy in large modern societies. They question whether direct democracy can achieve the reflective deliberation they seek. Scholars like David Held argue that the quality of participation is more crucial than its quantity. One proposed method for implementing deliberative democracy involves deliberative polling, where a small group is initially polled on specific issues, engages in debates, and is then polled again to assess any changes in views. The results are then shared with a broader audience. Supporters of deliberative democracy view it as a means of fostering altruism in liberal democracies dominated by private interests. They anticipate increased tolerance for diverse views in divided societies and the emergence of greater consensus through deliberation. Decisions resulting from this process are expected to be more rational and deemed more legitimate due to careful consideration. However, a drawback is that substantive deliberation on significant issues is time-consuming, potentially leading to delays or decision-making paralysis. Criticism has also been directed at the theory for overstating the level of consensus achievable through deliberation. Why Is Democracy Thought to Be Special? Democracy is closely associated with politics globally and is considered an essential aspect of good governance. The primary reason for this connection is often seen as the democratic origin of laws, making them obligatory to accept and follow. The argument is that the legitimacy of laws lies in their democratic creation, reflecting the will of the people. Even when laws may be discriminatory based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, their democratic foundation is believed to lend them a legitimacy they might not otherwise have. Occasionally, the courts play a role in challenging laws that, while supported by the majority, are discriminatory. An example is the 2015 US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, a move unlikely through congressional legislation. Challenges may persist at the state level where legislatures decide how to implement or ignore the Supreme Court decision. The question of political obligation, or why individuals should obey the laws of the state, is a central concern in political theory. This issue is critical due to the compulsory nature of living within a state. Unlike voluntary organizations where individuals can choose to accept or leave the rules, the state presents a different situation. Most people do not have the option to move to a place with more favorable laws, making it necessary for them to accept and obey the laws of the state. Failure to comply typically results in some form of punishment. Democracy is seen as an ideal basis for political obligation because the laws produced through democratic processes are likely to align with the interests of the people. In a democratic system, individuals have a say in creating laws, ensuring that their preferences are considered. This aligns with the concept of a social contract, suggesting that people in a hypothetical state of nature would choose democracy to maintain their freedom, as it allows them to participate in the formation of the laws governing their lives. Therefore, democracy is considered a political system that preserves the freedom reminiscent of the state of nature. Is Democracy Special? The Problem of Majority Rule The main advantage of democracy is that it allows us to participate in the making of the laws we live under; therefore, those laws are more likely to be in our interests. The principal problem with democracy is that we will rarely arrive at unanimous decisions. As a result, democratic government means accepting the will of the majority. The majoritarian principle, while commonly used, faces several challenges. When there are more than two alternatives for voters, reaching a majority decision becomes difficult. In systems with first-past-the-post electoral methods, such as in Canada, issues arise when multiple parties compete. For instance, in some elections, the party forming the government did not receive many votes. In the 2019 federal election, the Conservatives had over 1 million more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals secured more seats, illustrating the potential discrepancy between the popular vote and the distribution of parliamentary seats. This highlights a limitation of the majoritarian principle, as preferences may be split, allowing a minority of voters to have a significant impact on government formation and public policy. While majority rule is a common political mechanism, its appropriateness is not guaranteed. Even if a government is elected with majority support, there is the risk that it may later undermine the principle of majoritarianism, passing legislation to hinder or prevent democratic practices. Additionally, consistently adhering to majoritarianism means that every decision will leave some individuals in the minority. Some political philosophers argue that individuals are not obligated to obey laws they did not support. Robert Paul Wolff, in "In Defense of Anarchism" (1970), contends that those in the minority have no obligation to accept laws, and because there is no definitive solution to the majority rule problem, no government can be considered fully legitimate. Wolff suggests that the only legitimate society would be one preserving individual autonomy—an anarchist society without government. In settler states formed through the colonization of Indigenous lands, democracy, based on one vote per adult citizen or permanent resident, may work against Indigenous rights even if they have the right to vote. The promise of "peace, order, and good government" in countries like Canada might discriminate against pre-existing Indigenous traditions of governance. Journalist Robert Jago notes that Indigenous rights in Canada often take a back seat due to their lower population, making it challenging for them to significantly influence electoral outcomes. This "Canadian Problem" is attributed to the difference in population size, where the numbers of settlers significantly outnumber Indigenous peoples, impacting their democratic rights, control over lands, and resources. In Canadian federal and provincial elections, Indigenous peoples typically constitute a minority. In 2019, the Assembly of First Nations identified 63 "priority districts" where Indigenous voters could potentially influence outcomes in favor of parties supporting treaty implementation and federal investment in areas like education and housing. This tactical voting represents a potential shift in how Indigenous peoples perceive and articulate their interests. Additionally, a record number of Indigenous candidates participated in the 2019 elections, with 62 First Nations, Métis, and Inuit candidates compared to 54 in 2015. Journalist Robert Jago's concerns extend to the institutions themselves, which assert that majority voting is a legitimate decision-making method. However, this may not seem legitimate to Indigenous peoples whose institutions are traditionally based on discussion, deliberation, and consensus. Northern Ireland presents a classic case of a permanent minority, where traditionally, key issues have been decided along ethnonationalist lines, with Protestants in the majority and Catholics in the minority. Persistent discrimination against the Catholic minority community contributed to the resurgence of troubles in the late 1960s. In the context of Brexit negotiations, a recurring challenge was whether Northern Ireland would have a hard border with the Irish republic to the south, involving customs officials, surveillance, and checkpoints. Many Protestant Unionists in the north, who identify as British, favored a hard border, considering anything less as a betrayal of their loyalty to Britain. However, creating a hard border with Ireland, an EU member state, would require expensive checkpoints, affecting the daily flow of goods and services and potentially dividing towns and buildings. Despite the completion of Brexit, the issue of Northern Ireland's border remains a contentious and unresolved matter. Many political systems aim to safeguard minority populations by incorporating protections for individual rights into their constitutions. In Canada, this protection is theoretically ensured by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). Individuals can challenge perceived Charter violations in Canadian courts, and the Charter has played a significant role in instigating political change in at least six areas. In the United States, a similar protection exists in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers established the Bill of Rights out of concern for the potential "tyranny of the majority." KEY CONCEPT BOX 3.5 Six Big Changes Brought about by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) in Canada has played a crucial role in instigating political changes across various areas, as demonstrated by several landmark cases: Limiting police powers: The Oakes case in 1986 was pivotal, where the Supreme Court overturned a law requiring the accused to disprove a presumption of guilt, specifically related to possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. Women's reproductive rights: The 1988 Morgentaler case declared unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code related to abortion. Parliament had the opportunity to rewrite the legislation, but since then, abortion has effectively been legal in Canada. Recognition of the LGBT community: Through multiple decisions, the courts recognized the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Canadians. The 1998 Vriend decision incorporated sexual orientation into Alberta's human rights legislation, paving the way for subsequent decisions on pensions, marital rights, and same-sex marriage. Linguistic rights for francophones outside Quebec: The Charter granted francophones outside Quebec access to French schools, school boards, and even hospitals through various provincial and Supreme Court decisions. Strengthened Aboriginal rights: Section 35 of the Charter recognizing Aboriginal peoples and an amendment to section 25 on Aboriginal land claims sent important messages. The Charter imposes a duty on governments to consult Aboriginal peoples when their rights are unduly affected by resource development or other government changes. Judicial activism: The Charter has resulted in a significant transfer of policymaking to the courts, particularly in areas described as "morality issues," according to Schwartz (2012). Cosmopolitan Democracy In this chapter, the focus has been on democracy within the context of city-states and, more recently, nation-states. However, in the era of globalization, the concept of cosmopolitan democracy is noteworthy. Scholars like Held (2006) argue that as citizens of nation-states are increasingly influenced, if not dominated, by global forces, political leaders should ensure that these forces are subject to democratic control. This perspective gains relevance in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, where international institutions face challenges in maintaining accountability and equity amid growing state competition over supply chains and access to medical supplies and vaccines. Democratic theorists need to ensure that international institutions can effectively control global developments while being accountable to democratic oversight. Held (2006) proposes the establishment of regional parliaments with the authority to make decisions legally binding in international law, along with the use of referendums spanning national borders. He cites the European Union (EU) as an example, although the role of existing sovereign states within the EU model is unclear. Hoffman and Graham (2006) argue that this ambiguity weakens the radical nature of Held's argument. They contend that the concept of "cosmopolitan democracy" can only be coherently sustained if the international community moves away from being composed of states. An alternative response to the perceived undemocratic implications of globalization is to advocate for "strengthening the sovereignty of democratic states by defending their internal political structures against external constraint and interference" (Cunningham, 2002). This perspective challenges the cosmopolitan model, which assumes that globalization is a reality. The realist school of international relations, contrary to the cosmopolitan view, places the state at the center of political analysis, questioning the extent to which globalization is indeed a pervasive and transformative force. The COVID-19 era has seen a dual impact of tightened borders and some collaborative efforts in information-sharing and funding to combat the pandemic. On one hand, the world has become more "provincialized," with reduced international travel, less reliance on global supply chains, and a decrease in imported products. Simultaneously, state governments have increased cooperation to share information and mitigate the virus's impact. Despite these collaborative efforts, many countries have not done enough to promote a cosmopolitan agenda. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern about the lack of coordination among countries in responding to COVID-19, emphasizing the need for a new approach where nations work together to share medical information, coordinate pandemic responses, and ensure accessibility to treatments, testing mechanisms, and vaccines for everyone. LIST OF KEY TERMS Consociational democracy-Consociationalism, also known as consociational democracy, is a form of democratic power sharing. It is typically found in countries that are deeply divided into distinct religious, ethnic, racial, or regional segments. Political scientists define a consociational state as one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, but which remains stable due to consultation among the elites of these groups. The two central characteristics of consociationalism are government by grand coalition and segmental autonomy. cosmopolitan democracy-A system based on popular control of supranational institutions and processes. deliberative democracy-A model of democracy based on the principle that discussion and debate among citizens lead to rational, legitimate, and altruistic decision-making. democracy-A political system based on elected, representative self-government by citizens. Normally, democracy also includes changes of government through regular elections, various institutional checks and balances, a strong legal tradition that provides equality for its citizens under the law, and some form of civil society capable of articulating the people’s political and social preferences. democratic elitism-A model of democracy in which voters can choose between competing teams of leaders; an attempt, most closely associated with Joseph Schumpeter, to reconcile elitism with democracy. direct democracy-A system in which the people rule directly (not through representatives). illiberal democracies-A state in which elections are held but there is relatively little protection of rights and liberties, and state control over the means of communication means that the party in power generally remains there. liberal democracies-A state characterized by free and fair elections, universal suffrage, a relatively high degree of personal liberty, and protection of individual rights. political obligation-The question of what, if anything, obliges individuals to obey the state, a central preoccupation of political theorists. Answers to this question range from the ancient notion that monarchs have a “divine right” to rule to the modern notion that democracy is the basis of authority. political system-The totality of institutions within a state and all the connections between them. polyarchy-A term coined by Robert Dahl to refer to a society in which government outcomes are the product of the competition between groups. The rule of minorities, not majorities, is postulated as the normal condition of pluralist democracies. representative democracy-A system in which the people choose others to represent their interests instead of making decisions themselves.