In Print: The Meaning of American Democracy

America in the twenty-first century continues to be faced with questions about how democratic government should work. These include recurrent debates about the excessive influence of “special interests” and the inequality of political power and influence, which have challenged the twentieth-century proponents of democratically oriented pluralist theory in the United States. Recent events and circumstances have made questions about the meaning of democracy ever more pressing. The election of 2000, the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, and the 2004 election have raised issues concerning the central normative requirements of democracy in America. By democracy, we mean, specifically, republican democracy or representative government, by which the wants of the American people are made part of and are respected by government. The normative requirements are: First, that there be institutions and procedures that facilitate control by the American people, which can be called “procedural” or “institutional” democracy; second, that there be recognizable representation of the people in what the government does, which can be referred to as “substantive” democracy; and third, that there be vigorous protections of the individual rights and liberties of the people…

What republican democracy means to some theorists and others is the existence of rules, procedures, and entities that enable voters to hold political leaders accountable and that prevent abuses of power. The existence of these kinds of effective procedures and mechanisms, which can be subsumed by the term institutions, is sufficient for a system to be democratic. The public, as citizens, controls what government does through periodic elections that allow for the selection of new elites to lead the nation. Once in office, these elites are free to—indeed, are expected to—act independently of public opinion as “trustees” of the national interest (in contrast to “delegates” expected to follow directly the wishes of their constituents). It is sufficient for representative democracy that citizens judge and vote in or out these leaders at the time of the next election, when old leaders, if defeated, will give way to the new. This is what the Framers of the American Constitution established through direct and indirect elections of members of the legislative and executive branches, and it was sufficient for them to consider the constitutional system a republican democracy…

In contrast to institutional democracy, substantive democracy refers to how public opinion, to an identifiable extent, matters in policy making—that is, it has a place in shaping government policy. A challenge to this what V. O. Key, perhaps the most famous student of public opinion and political leadership, feared was the possibility “that democracy only amounts to a hoax, a ritual, whose performance serves to only delude the people and thereby convert them into willing subjects of the powers that be.” The original pluralists thought it was not a hoax because there was ultimately democratic competition among organized groups, and the “new pluralists,” as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have called them, emphasize the more general influence of public opinion and voters, which can be studied through comparisons of public opinion poll results with the policies government enacts…

But assessing American “democracy” requires more than seeing if government policies coincide with the wishes of the citizenry. What also matters is how this coincidence has come about and the nature and quality of that public opinion that supports government policies. Here, what matters is whether the public has received available information sufficient to make a judgment that is in its—and the nation’s—best interest. It is therefore necessary to examine the process by which the public is informed about those policies that it comes to want, including, especially, those that the nation’s leaders bring to its attention…

Democracy requires more than effective institutions that hold leaders accountable and prevent them from abusing their powers, and more than evidence that the public often gets government to do what it wants. It is also essential that the rights and liberties of individuals be protected from possible abusive actions of government, its leaders, or majorities of the citizenry. These protections are provided for in the Constitution and its amendments, and American democracy requires that such rights and liberties be defended and upheld…

What, then, is the status of American democracy in 2005? The answer is complicated and.. disconcerting. It is complicated because there are three aspects of American democracy to consider—institutional processes, substantive representation, and protections of rights and liberties. It is disconcerting because of the specific answers that rise to the top at this time. The country’s institutions have fallen short in ways that need to be widely debated and resolved. [There are] serious questions about the right to vote and the nature of majority rule in the United States. The separation of powers that has served the nation well is facing challenges in contemporary politics because of events since September 11 and increases in partisan polarization. This polarization may have affected the extent to which government is substantively responsive to public opinion. The fact that polarized parties, by definition, have different agendas and preferred policies indicates that the parties are acting as “responsible parties” that offer voters clear choices, and they can be held responsible for these choices at election time. That the major parties and their candidates have ideological incentives to attempt to lead the public, and electoral incentives to be responsive, would seem to befit the term “American democracy.”

Where there is a clear problem for substantive democracy is in the extent to which political leaders have resorted to using deceptive or outright false information and questionable efforts at public relations to manipulate public opinion. The nation’s press has fallen short here—it has not been able to protect the public from such manipulation. This problem was clear in the decision to go to war with Iraq. In contrast, debate about Social Security reform has played in a way more consistent with democratic norms. The separation of powers, open debate, and the availability of information and the analyses of experts have made the politics of Social Security reform more democratic than the case of Iraq, and an engaged public on this issue has been taken into account in the political process.

Last, regarding the protection of rights and liberties, debates about civil rights and political inclusiveness for racial and ethnic minorities have continued, along with concerns about how to deal with the increasing economic inequality. But what are currently taking their toll on American democracy are government actions that have encroached on individual rights and liberties in response to a perceived external threat to the nation. The courts do not always reassert the guarantees of these rights quickly and clearly. Historically, the challenges to individual rights and liberties have subsided in such cases when the threat has diminished.

It is, in a sense, ironic that these challenges to American democracy have emerged during a period in which the United States should have been basking in its success. With the end of the Cold War, it was indisputably the world’s leading military as well as economic power, and its biggest fears of the past and threats to security had diminished. Then came September 11. Perhaps more ironically, these challenges to democracy have occurred at a time when the goal of American foreign policy, as stated by the Bush administration, is to spread democracy and freedom worldwide. It may be the case that in this new century, what American democracy means may be affected, more so than ever before, not only by domestic politics but also by what the United States does on the world stage.

Reproduced by permission from Robert Y. Shapiro, ed., The Meaning of American Democracy (New York: The Academy of Political Science, 2005). Additional information about the book is available at http://www.psqonline.org/?amdemocracy.