Comparing polyarchal, pluralist, and liberal democratic theories

Democracy

In a fair and free election, the resultant outcome comes from the majority ruling of votes. In an ideal democratic environment, such votes are the consequence of all participant voters -- the legitimate populace as allowed for such voting -- and thus officials are elected in service of the majority of the peoples. However, this utopic democracy is limited in that not all participant voters are knowledgeable in decisions affecting themselves and affecting the government. The other branch of democracy -- one of polyarchy -- calls for the distribution of power within a selective few branches, with which to run government. This is only a minimal progression out of the term "monarchy." Why not, then, a view of democracy that encompass both types of governance -- one in which the population is allowed election of those numerous knowledgeable representatives with the proper background into voting for the electoral democracy? That is, make minimalist, slightly liberal democracy the perfect democracy.

There are three types of democracies to be discussed in this paper: the polyarchal democracy conceptualized by Robert Dahl, pluralism as described by Nicholas Miller, and the minimalist and extended liberal democracy as argued and defended by Adam Przeworski, James S. Fishkin, and Larry Diamond. Each type of democracy contains many basic human rights as pertaining to the subject of liberty and freedom. The manner of election and governance between the three ultimately differ, however. There are downsides to all three, with major setbacks in the outcomes of the former two democracies mentioned. Thus, the lesser evil to be obtained would be to take the liberal, minimalistic view of said democracies.

Polyarchal Democracy

Robert Dahl's polyarchy is a "state of affairs constituting a limit, and all actions approaching the limit will be maximizing actions." In his definition of the best democracy, the populace is allowed its voting rights, though the voting results in the investiture of power within more than one person -- though not succinctly similar to "of the people." The voting process has its limits, in which populistic democracy upholds three characteristics; one of these characteristics pertaining to what is referred to as "The Rule," which pertains to the choosing of alternative forms of power (Dahl). The Rule illustrates the voting in of alternative peoples into power, as following a set of eight limited conditions. In summary, the conditions listed call for the populace's decisions, in which the alternative choice with the majority's votes -- where the votes are equal in weight for every individual -- is the clear victor, displacing any other alternative in the voting process. These conditions are also known as the "eight norms," of which makes a polyarchy "functional" (Dahl).

Herein lies the problem of said polyarchal democracy. The ideal conditions have not been met in full, and the bestowal of power within few various heads of government can be closer tied to the literal forms of oligarchy than democracy. A further problem with this polyarchy is that the ordinary people are limited in the participation of the voting process. Those of the lower income infrastructure are less than likely to participate in the political process, if at all capable of doing so. Furthermore, representation within higher heads of state do not seem to apply in certain areas -- an example would be the U.S. governments exclusion of the voting populace of its territories: Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.).

Minimalist and Liberal Democracy

These minimalist and liberal democracies go hand-in-hand, where liberal democracy plays on the ideas conceptualized in minimalism and the idea of the "voice of the people" (Fishkin). Of course, liberal democracy further expands on minimalism, but minimalism must be fully understood before liberalism can be discussed. The minimalist concept of democracy calls upon the use of electoral votes, wherein representatives are voted into power by an engaged public. Staunch supporters find the expediency in this method of voting out of the sheer efficiency that would conclude from the voting results. For one, "when a decision is reached by voting, some people must submit to an opinion different from theirs or to a decision contrary to their interest" (Przeworski). For another, there is a clear decision made, as opposed to the dialogue in pluralist democracy; minimalism limits dialogue to the necessary debates that bring about an overall decision made in the end thereafter.

This is not to say that minimalism is a result of a vote from the entire populace, however. In fact, Fishkin's suggestion of a deliberative poll refers to the entirety of an "engaged society," that is, the people who are more than aware of the issues and are taking an active effort in weighing the options of the policies. The minimalist democracy -- sometimes referred to as an electoral democracy -- calls upon the knowledge of civilians in voting for executive officers through competitive, multiparty elections. The prospect of the "engaged society" is a subject defended by those who defend minimalism. With this and the election of the proper representatives, minimalism becomes effective.

It comes to the point where liberal democracy takes minimalism to a more specific standpoint, where representation takes a direct role in the election process. Elections are free, fair, and competitive. Liberal democracy then becomes a "system where individual and group liberties are protected and in which there exist autonomous spheres of civil society and private life, insulated from state control" (Diamond). Here, the government officials are chosen through the use of electoral campaigns, where a knowledgeable group of voters are voting for the representatives that will uphold the basic human rights as bestowed upon them in their respective constitutions. A number of components are listed in liberal democracy that was not included in minimalism; of which include the responsibility of elected officials and their part in the military -- in which the military is controlled by the authority of the elected civilian officials. It is clear, however, that the practices in liberal democracy best fit the interests of human rights as illustrated by Diamond.

Conclusion

Of the three types of democracies illustrated in the paper, one undertakes to find that true, political stability. Pluralism takes a more passive approach in the idea of government, wherein every person is expected to bestow upon them an educated opinion and thus, vote accordingly. On the other hand, polyarchy demands the educated rulings in the hands of leaders elected through votes. These leaders would undoubtedly take a much more heady approach that may not necessarily coincide with the people on various issues. Liberal democracy -- a more specific and heavily expanded minimalism -- proves more advantageous a democracy than the former two; here, at least the people can elect representatives who are wary of the viewpoints of those they represent.