Democracy & Liberty, Part 1(b)

This is the second in a series of posts on this subject by the late Professor Raghavan Iyer that was introduced here.

“The essential elements in the everyday concept of political democracy must be appreciated if we are to lay down the minimally necessary institutional conditions [emphasis added].

1. Even if all cannot govern, all citizens must be allowed to choose who can govern. [Of course here what is important is that we have a definition of citizenship that includes all who have reached, as we say, “the age of reason” or are deemed adults, regardless of their ethnicity, worldviews, gender, and so forth. Given the nature of human judgment and political judgment in particular, we will endeavor to provide sufficient forms of formal and informal education and socialization or enculturation such that it is less likely that these citizens will not have malformed judgments or judgments distorted or trumped by those forms of well-known debilitating psychological and emotional phenomena that tend to make mincemeat of rationality and the voice of reason.]
2. Those who are chosen as eligible to govern must represent those who cannot govern. [This may seem obvious, but history has shown us how elusive this often can be.]
3. Those who are eligible must in turn choose those who will govern. [In a footnote Iyer writes: ‘If the word “choose” here is taken literally, the entire model would be applicable in parliamentary democracy. If taken in a looser sense to apply widely to all those who fulfill important political roles, the model can cover many types of democracy.’]
4. Those who do govern must be responsive and responsible to the people through representative and also behave as if they were themselves the foremost trustees and representatives of the people, including those who are opposed to their policies and positions [emphasis added].
5. All citizens must be allowed to replace or re-elect those who may and those who do govern.
6. Those who are chosen as eligible to govern must be able to remove or replace those who do govern when they no longer enjoy their confidence or the support of the people.
7. There must be adequate opportunities for all these choices to be made and to be realized, as also for the enlargements of the area of choice and the capacity to choose, thus tending to equalize the chances of all to secure their choices and to be chose as representatives or as rulers.

These essential requirements of the concept of democracy can only be realized through appropriate institutions and arrangements. Power must be diffused as widely as possible and not concentrated in a few centers if democracy is to secure unity without loss of freedom, equality without mediocrity, variety without sacrificing unity, progress without endangering either unity or liberty [emphasis added].  

If democracy is viewed mainly as a social theory, there is a natural tendency to think of it in terms of a metaphysical, sociological, or psychological archetype, abstracted from a historical and cultural context. In fact, democracy is a system of government which is determined not only by minimal institutional conditions but also by varying constellations of supporting and sufficient conditions. A democratic society, like a developed economy, has its own infrastructure conducive to political democracy as to economic development. It is not feasible to describe exhaustively the elements in this infrastructure, or even to decide definitively which are necessary and which are sufficient conditions. [J.S.] Mill mentioned two necessary conditions—the popular willingness to receive, defend, and preserve democracy, and to discharge the functions it imposes on its supporters. Tocqueville pointed to a variety of factors that supported and reinforced democracy: the application of the federal principle; the vitality of local institutions; the strength and scope of judicial power; the role of a healthy religious spirit in a secular polity; social equality; expanding opportunities; a restless and enterprising, and independent temper; the capacity for and the quality of self-legislation; the existence of numerous non-governmental associations [today we might term these ‘reference groups’ and ‘communities’ of one kind or another]; and a variety of avenues of social cooperation. Three others are stressed by James Bryce: the reforming zeal of citizens and their readiness to assume responsibility for public institutions; the role of intellectual and cultural élites in the formation of opinion and the stimulation of thinking on public questions; and the prevailing sentiment of national unity. [….]

There are many more stabilizing factors and dynamic forces favorable to democracy, some so obvious that they are mistakenly believed to be universally necessary, others so subtle and intangible that they are often overlooked. The latter include the following factors, which can only be listed here: the existence of independent institutions respected for their integrity and fearlessness in the face of the State; the ability of people in general to distinguish between the men in power and the System; a nationwide structure of democratic education; the adoption of democratic methods within nonpolitical bodies wherever possible [emphasis added; the last two italicized items call to mind such different individuals as John Dewey, Paolo Freire, Septima Clark, and Myles Horton, as well as models of education found in anarchist thought and experiments]; sufficient diversity of desires and expectation to reduce the stress and strain of competition [the most troubling forms of which are intrinsic to capitalist societies]; intellectual resilience, cultural flexibility, and social mobility; the continual narrowing of the gap between privileged and weaker groups so as to reduce the intensity of conflicts of interest in society; the ability of leaders to influence and be influenced by the widest possible range of public opinion; the sense of responsibility and the self-denying role of élites; a steady rise in the ethical and cultural level of the community; a spirit of trusteeship and a capacity for admitting and correcting errors among those who constitute the administration; a climate of thought and conduct that fosters intellectual honesty and individual initiative. It is only the essentials—conceptual and institutional—of democracy that can help us to identify a democratic regime, although its evolution cannot be understood except in terms of the infrastructure of the society in which it functions. Much intellectual and practical harm has been caused by ignoring these caveats.”

Part 2(a) will cover Iyer’s succinct introductory and incisive discussion of liberty as it is (like equality and fraternity or solidarity) an integral part of democratic theory and praxis.