So, I ask the reader to set aside the reasons why majorities restrict electorates for a moment and consider the concept in the abstract for a moment. My purpose is not to challenge the importance of universal suffrage, but rather to defend it and explain the logical inconsistency in Schumpeter’s approach. Indeed, universal suffrage of adults is a widely accepted precondition for democracy with few exceptions and even those are contested. No serious theorist today regards any regime democratic who restricts the electorate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Many will find it difficult to look beyond the racism, sexism, and anti-semitism that Schumpeter permits in his account of democracy. He writes, “The salient point is that, given appropriate views on those and similar subjects, disqualifications on grounds of economic status, religion and sex will enter into the same class with disqualifications which we all of us consider compatible with democracy.” He goes even further in a footnote where he admits, “Thus the United States excludes Orientals and Germany excludes Jews from citizenship in the southern part of the United States Negroes are also often deprived of the vote.” Schumpeter recognized a purely majoritarian view of democracy permits an electorate to restrict the vote but rather than recognize this as a critique of majoritarianism, he accepted this as a necessary consequence. Joseph Schumpeter understood the implications of his radically procedural definition of democracy. Voter participation declined 72% in twenty-four years as the South imposed new laws to reduce political participation. A closer analysis shows a steady decline in every election in between. For example, South Carolina saw voter participation in Presidential elections decline from a peak of 182,683 in 1876 to just 50,812 in 1900. The American South found ways to limit their electorate after reconstruction to keep African Americans out of political participation. Moreover, history has shown this is a real possibility. Indeed, they have the power to limit or restrict the electorate for future elections. It confers control over political procedures as well. Majoritarianism gives the majority control over more than policy. Fareed Zakaria’s critique of illiberal democracy centered around American democracy promotion efforts where competitive elections mattered more than other liberal values such as human rights.Ī purely majoritarian interpretation of democracy brings about an obvious paradox. Elections have long served as the barometer of democracy. Majority rule has come to symbolize democratic governance, because theorists and practitioners have adopted a procedural view of democracy. Majority Rule in Democracyĭemocracy is neither majoritarian nor minoritarian. This is the seventh part of the Democracy Paradox, a comprehensive work of political theory. In reality democracy involves neither majority nor minority rule. Others believe majorities must remain in check to preserve democracy.
Too many people confuse majority rule as a crude form of democracy. Photo of the Storming of the Capitol by Tyler Merbler
0 kommentar(er)
