Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
POL1 Schumpeter - Coggle Diagram
POL1 Schumpeter
Intro
From Athens to Paris, citizens of democracies have praised the unique values defended by their system for generations: political freedom, participation, and inclusiveness
Rousseau said it himself in the Social Contract that “were there a people of Gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.”
While Rousseau promptly acknowledged that there never was, nor will there ever be, a government in the world that is truly ‘democratic,’ he still used the word ‘democracy’ in its etymological meaning to refer to the power of the people.
Perhaps similar to when the term was coined in 5BC it most probably meant 'the rule of the person who had the demos as his followers"
when Schumpeter wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy that democracy is nothing more than the “rule of the politician,” he unequivocally questioned the ethos of democracy in Western societies.
Unlike Tocqueville who saw democracy as an end — a historical necessity even —, the Schumpeterian description sees democracy as a means of competition between political elites whose stake is popular suffrage.
And, as a by-product, the end of democracy is the production of laws, decrees, and decisions.
Considering that Schumpeter had a relatively poor experience with democracy in the aftermath of the Great War, the Austrian political economist adopted an empirical and realist standpoint, rejecting any intrinsic values associated to democracy to advocate for a more procedural approach instead.
People can never rule
One exception
he did concede that the only way people can actually rule or govern is through direct democracy — like in the “Greek polis” or the “New England town meetings.”
But in most representative democracies of the West the concept of ‘the rule of the people’ is not “precise” enough to be automatically associated with democracy for 2 reasons
-
-
it would also be a mistake to think that parliaments are representative bodies through which the people can exercise their power
-
2) Schumpeter argued that there are historical precedents to prove that there are “monarchies,” or “oligarchies” that have succeeded in securing the “democratic method.”
Because the regimes can present themselves as either democracies through electoral dictatorship OR these regimes have a system of democracy that can emerge from it
argued that the people cannot rule and that the classical doctrine is simply too idealist, precisely because the common will of the people does not exist
Dismissed the 18th century democratic method advocated by thinkers like Rousseau — the classical doctrine
suggests that there is an “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.”
-
Since the classical doctrine considers that there is a common will of the people that coincides with the common good, Schumpeter used this argument to rebut the fact that a common will of the people exists
by positioning himself against utilitarianism, Schumpeter denies any possibility of a harmonious exercise of power by the people through the common will.
-
not only does a common will not exist, but that if it does, the people’s will is manufactured by the politician
the people cannot rule in a democracy because they are not knowledgeable enough beyond the sphere of their private affairs.
While a common will can still emerge from a congregation of individual wills, Schumpeter noted that they are nothing more than “vague impulses” that are formed and influenced by “given slogans and mistaken impressions.”
The problem in a democracy is not that the citizens do not know enough, in fact, they can be extremely knowledgeable about things that matter the most to them,
but when it comes to a general set of knowledge concerning far-reaching political questions, the average citizen cannot be expected to be fully informed of everything.
politicians capitalise on this problem of voter ignorance to influence individual wills — thus also influencing any common will that might be formed
-
Schumpeter sees modern democracy as a sham, with “psycho-techniques,” politicians, as the very “essence” of the manipulation.
Since it is clear that politicians have their own interests that do not have to coincide with the common good, it is not the people that rule, they think they are ruling because they have fallen into the advertisement of their leaders.
the majority does not represent the people or its will, it is simply a majority that happens to select one leader or another
While one could argue that the essence of democracy is driven by the majority — with the elections being the manifestation of the will of the people — and not its leader, Schumpeter would also disagree with this
-
Worse, still, in certain cases the electorate majority does not even represent the popular majority.
As it was the case in the 2016 United States Presidential election, D. Trump got the keys to the White House with not even half of the popular votes,
-
More recently in 2020, a lot of voters were voting for J. Biden to oppose Trump — and not necessarily because Biden represented what they stood for
therefore, one could ask if the 2020 election was a celebration of Biden’s victory or of Trump’s defeat
proves Schumpeter’s argument that votes can sometimes seem conflicting because they are influence by a multitude of reason that do not necessarily line up with the common will.
-
When we vote (aside from in referendums when its yes no — but even possibly then), even when we vote in the same way, we are not voting for the same thing
What 'political will' then is expressed if that party then wins a majority because there are different nuances in their program
Conclusion
Schumpeter’s view on democracy as an instrumental value, a political method rather than a value in itself has often been criticised as elitist.
Rejecting the idea of a common will and common good, Schumpeter is adamant that the people can never rule in a democracy because it is the job of professional politicians who are meant to compete (freely and competitively) for the people’s vote.
Incapable of political judgements, citizens of democracies are an easy prey to political manipulation by politicians who encourage voter irrationality and do not govern according to what the voters want since they have their own agendas and interests
-
Nonetheless, the people’s ability to influence political decisions cannot be neglected when assessing popular sovereignty in democracies.
What is democracy
distinction (borrowed from Weber) between democracy as a supreme value in itself (“the Classical Doctrine of Democracy”),
and, democracy as a method for the selection of leaders (“Democracy as Competition for Political Leadership”).
-
-