FREE ESSAY ON DEMOCRACY

DEMOCRACY

Democracy 
Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and has been the primary
goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman Empire,
all the way to the government of the United States today. There are a few essential
characteristics which must be present in a political system for it to be even considered
democratic. One essential characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows
people to freely make choices without government intervention. Another necessary
characteristic which legitimates government is that every vote must count equally: one
vote for every person. For this equality to occur, all people must be subject to the same
laws, have equal civil rights, and be allowed to freely express their ideas. Minority
rights are also crucial in a legitimate democracy. No matter how unpopular their views,
all people should enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Public policy should
be made publicly, not secretly, and regularly scheduled elections should be held. All of
these elements and government processes are a regular part of the American government.
Yet, even with all the above elements present in the governmental operations of our
country, numerous aspects of the governmental process undermine its legitimacy, and bring
to question if United States government is really a true democracy. Considering the
achievement of complete democracy is most likely impossible, the political system of
American government is democratic, but its democratic legitimacy is clearly limited in
many respects. One of the first notable aspects of the United States government which
brings the democratic legitimacy into question is the ever-occurring bias between classes
of people that participate in the electoral voting. Class is determined by income and
education, and differing levels of these two factors can help explain why class bias
occurs. For example, because educated people tend to understand politics more, they are
more likely to vote. In fact, political studies done at Princeton in 1995 clearly showed
that 76 percent of all voters had college degrees. The same studies have been done in the
next three years and showed the percentage steadily holding at 76 percent, except in
1997, when it dropped down by two percent (Avirett 11). This four to one ration of
college educated voters versus non-college educated voters shows a clear inequality and
bias in the American voting system. This also brings about the aspect of income. People
with high income and education have more resources, while poor people do not, and
instead, tend to have low political efficacy. This efficacy has been interpreted as
feelings of low self-worth in the world of politics. "Vast majority of the lower class
simply feels they do not have enough power or influence to make a change, thus choosing
to exclude themselves from the electoral process" (Fox 13). Turnout, therefore, is low
and since the early 1960s, has been declining overall (Fox 17). Although in theory the
American system calls for one vote per person, the low rate of turnout results in the
upper and middle classes ultimately choosing candidates for the entire nation. This
concludes that because voting is class-biased, it may not be classified as a completely
legitimate process. The winner-take-all system in elections may also be criticized for
being undemocratic because the proportion of people agreeing with a particular candidate
on a certain issue may not be adequately represented under this system. For example, "a
candidate who gets forty percent of the vote, as long as he gets more votes than any
other candidate, can be elected-even though sixty percent of the voters voted against
him(Lind, 314). Such was the case with president Carter and the opposing Republican
candidate Ford in the 1972 presidential election. Carter won the presidency by only one
percent in the people's pole, as well as just barely managing to get by in the electoral
college with 297 votes over Ford's 241 (Lind 321). This meant that almost fifty percent
of the voting population did not agree with Carter's views, yet had to endure them for at
least next four years. Even though democracy is based on the principle of the majority
rule, such close elections make the majority not that major at all, and seriously put a
question mark on the democratic legitimacy of the United States government. Another
element of the United State government that brings controversy to the democratic process
and its legitimacy are the political parties. "Political parties in America are weak due
to the anti-party, anti-organization, and anti-politics cultural prejudices of the
Classical Liberals" (Avirett 23). Because there is no national discipline in the United
States that forces citizens into identifying with a political party, partisan
identification tends to be an informal psychological commitment to a party. This
informality allows people to be apathetic if they wish, and willingly giving up their
input into the political process. For the past fifty years, the Democratic party has been
associated with the lower class people and minorities, while the Republicans have been
supported mainly by upper class whites (Avirett 28). Still, there is absolutely no
substantial stance that each party takes to show its allegiance to their "assigned"
classes. In fact, Republican presidents like Ronald Regan and George Bush were credited
with major accomplishments in cutting the tax for the lower income families and boosting
the health reforms (Avirett 37). This contradicts the idea that Republicans only benefit
the interests of the upper class citizens, and clearly shows the apathy of people giving
up their input into the political process due to their partisan identification to a
certain party. Though this apathy is the result of a greater freedom in America than in
other countries, it ultimately decreases citizens' incentive to express their opinions
about issues, therefore making democracy less legitimate. Private interests are probably
the strongest indicators of illegitimate democracy in the United State government.
Private interests distort public policy making because, when making decisions,
politicians must take account of campaign contributors. An interest may be defined as any
involvement in anything that affects the economic, social, or emotional well-being of a
person (Cerent 9). When interests become organized into groups, then politicians may
become biased due to their influences. Special interests buy favors from congressmen and
presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like
corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups-can pool
their money and give up to ten thousand dollars per election to each House and Senate
candidate (Lind 157). Consequently, those people who do not become organized into
interest groups are likely to be underrepresented financially. This leads to further
inequality and, therefore, greater illegitimacy in the democratic system. The most noted
recent example of a politician being influenced by private interests is none other than
president Bill Clinton. Just three months after winning his second term over Senator Bob
Dole in the 1996 presidential elections, Clinton was under the investigation under
suspicion of acquiring campaign money by renting historical presidential rooms to wealthy
businessmen (Avirett 18). Although he was acquitted of the charges, the scandal showed
that private interest is a serious issue, and a clear problem in the political system of
the United States. Regan's administration was known for raising its campaign money from
weapon-oriented factories, which made about 32 percent of his total campaign collection
in the early 1980s (Avirett 15). George Bush's campaign money came mainly from the
Northern industrial cities, while Carter accepted majority of his money from the farmers
in the South, promising them better trade relations with the troubled Asian markets in
the 1970s (Avirett 22). All these are just a few examples of politicians taking every
advantage possible to gain more money for their campaigns, undermining the legitimacy of
the American government. The method in which we elect the President, on the other hand,
is fairly legitimate. The electoral college consists of representatives who we elect, who
then elect the President. Because this fills the requirement of regularly scheduled
elections, it is a legitimate process. The President is extremely powerful in foreign
policy making; so powerful that scholars now speak of the Imperial Presidency, implying
that the President runs foreign policy as an emperor. The President is the chief
diplomat, negotiator of treaties, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There has
been a steady growth of the President's power since World War II. This abundance of
foreign Presidential power may cause one to believe that our democratic system is not
legitimate. However, Presidential power in domestic affairs is limited. Therefore, though
the President is very powerful in certain areas, the term Imperial Presidency is not
applicable in all areas. This was particularly evident in the last decade, with President
Bush and Clinton exercising the "Imperial Presidency" as far as international affairs
were concerned, yet being limited when it came to domestic issues and approval from the
House and the Senate. Although Bush had strong control over military measures taken
against Sadam Hussein's attack on Kuwait, he was still in "check" by congress as far as
the oil market was concerned, particularly the domestic oil production in the United
States (Cerent 44). Clinton also had the power, along with the leaders of NATO, to
declare and execute war against raging Serbia. Still, he was bound by Senate regarding
the expenses put into the Balkan conflict, and had to rely on the congress to approve
further monetary transactions (Cerent 46). These recent examples of division of
international and domestic powers clearly show that "Imperial Presidency" is not
applicable in all areas and is moving towards the right direction, thus legitimizing
democracy in the United States as far as the presidential powers are concerned. The
election process of Congress is also very much legitimate because Senators and
Representatives are elected directly by the people. Power in Congress is usually
determined by the seniority system. In the majority party, which is the party which
controls Congress, the person who has served the longest has the most power. The problem
with the seniority system is that power is not based on elections or on who is most
qualified to be in a position of authority. "Congress is also paradoxical because, while
it is good at serving particular individual interests, it is bad at serving the general
interest due to its fragmented structure of committees and sub-committees" (Fox 56). The
manner in which Supreme Court Justices are elected is not democratic because they are
appointed by the President for lifelong terms, rather than in regularly scheduled
elections. There is a non-political myth that the only thing that Judges do is apply
rules neutrally. In actuality, they interpret laws and the Constitution using their power
of judicial review, the power explicitly given to them in Marbury v. Madison (Lind, 175).
Though it has been termed the imperial judiciary by some, the courts are still the
weakest branch of government because they depend upon the compliance of the other
branches for enforcement of the laws. The best example of judicial weakness can be found
in the act of impeaching the President. Although Richard Nixon never came under a full
trial by the Supreme Court, he was ordered to give out a statement regarding the
Watergate scandal in front of the Supreme Court Justices. Although the Justices placed a
legal hold on all his presidential actions, the hold was not enforced until the congress
reviewed the Courts decision (Lind 112). Even in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill
Clinton first had to testify in front of a Grand Jury put together by congress, and then
the Supreme Court Justices. In fact, Clinton was never tried in the Supreme Court,
because the congress ruled not to try him for impeachment in the first place. This brings
Judicial power to questions, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The fact that
our government is a bureaucracy in certain respects also brings about many controversial
aspects which question its legitimacy. The bureaucracy is not democratic for many
reasons. The key features of a bureaucracy are that they are large, specialized, run by
official and fixed rules, relatively free from outside control, run on a hierarchy, and
must keep written records of everything they do. "Bureaucracies focus on rules, but their
members are unhappy when the rules are exposed to the public" (Lind 171). Bureaucracies
violate the requirement of a legitimate democracy that public policy must be made
publicly, not secretly. To be hired in a bureaucracy, a person is required to take a
civil service exam. Also, people working in bureaucracies may be fired under extreme
circumstances. This usually leads to the Peter Principle; that people who are competent
at their jobs are promoted until they are in jobs in which they are no longer competent
(Lind 175). Policy making, on the other hand, should be considered democratic for the
most part. The public tends to get its way about sixty percent of the time, as it was
proven in the Princeton studies in 1995 (Avirett 13). The studies were based on a simple
principle of what people demanded from the government in the nationwide polls, and what
they got in the near future. In the end, sixty percent of all issues were addressed and
successfully solved by the government (Avirett 13). Because one of the key legitimating
factors of a government is a connection between what it does and what the public wants,
policy making can be considered sixty percent legitimate. Such a percentage puts the
American political system and its democratic legitimacy into perspective of being
legitimate for the most part, but not completely. Even though the individual workings of
the American government may not all be particularly democratic, they do form a political
system that prevails in its democratic ways at the end. Considering that achieving true
democracy is almost impossible, the United States government is coming close and is
striving to get closer as the years go by. It is true that the people who run for and win
public office are not necessarily the most intelligent, best informed, wealthiest, or
most successful business or professional people. At all levels of the political
system,...it is the most politically ambitious people who are willing to sacrifice time,
family and private life, and energy and effort for the power and celebrity that comes
with public office (Dye 58-59). But in the end, it is the choice of people that decides
whether these ambitious individuals are worthy of their vote and their representation.
The United States government might not be a perfect example of democracy, but it
certainly has the main democratic principles that allow for a political system to strive
for as true of a democracy as possible. Bibliography Avirett, James B. Republican Rule is
Soon to Come. September 1998. Education Corner.
*http://metalab.unc.edu/politics/avirett/avirett/html* Cerent, Brian. The Political
System. April 1996. Online Politics. *http://harward/find/concise.asp?z=1@pg.htm/* Dye,
Thomas R. Who's Running America? The Clinton Years. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Pretence Hall, 1995. Fox, James. Essence of Democracy. December 1996. Young Democrats.
*http://www.knight.org/advent/athen/14039a.htm* Lind, Michael. The Next American Nation:
The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution. New York: The Free Press, 1995.