Democracy Is A Pluralistic Democracy

Despite being one of the oldest and most consistently stable democracies in the Western world, the American government, and American democracy as a whole, has frequently come under fire in recent years. Whether it is political parties, pundits, bloggers or citizens, Americans and non-Americans are all lining up to take shots at what they diagnose as a storied democracy crumbling before their eyes. Two of Robert Dahl’s criteria for a healthy democracy are enlightened understanding: are citizens able to acquire the political information necessary to participate in their own democracy, and control of the agenda: do the American senators and members of congress have exclusive and

Democracy, as defined in American Government: Power and Purpose, is “a system of rule that permits citizens to play a significant part in the governmental process, usually through the selection of key public officials.” In the centuries before and since its founding, the United States has indubitably had undemocratic elements. In colonial times, the thirteen colonies’ government derived most of its authority from the elites, depriving many of those residing in lower socioeconomic classes from a voice in government. During the time of the American Revolution,

America is facing an all-time low in voter participation. Since 2014 the voting population has decreased by “thirty-six and four-tenths percent” (DelReal). Many theories explain the stigma of voting in America. According to the Wolfgang “the leading theory is: many minority voters are discriminated upon and do not believe their vote will count.” Many laws created infringe on the rights of Americans, however, when citizens do not vote the government seizes control on controversial issues , which in turn creates solutions that are less than satisfactory to the civilians.

Due to the need for campaign funds by both the Democratic and Republican party, representatives and party leaders are easily influenced by the alluring presence of money presented by the wealthy. Consequently, in terms of economic position, laws and policies tend to favor the privileged rather than the overall majority. For instance, beginning in the 1970s, corporate America started to invest more money and focus into politics. A large amount of corporate spending is on lobbying. In contrast, most Americans don’t have an organization to lobby for them. This being so, because the wealthy have more lobbying clout, the government tends to pay closer attention to the concerns of the very privileged.

In America, we pride ourselves on being a democracy and having choices, when in fact, it is only a political illusion. In the Constitution of the United States (which we are all held accountable to abide by), it states that we are a republic with regard to the people’s desire to be a democracy, yet there is much evidence that leans towards America being an oligarchy. While a republic is a country which elects representatives to make government decisions on their behalf, an oligarchy is a system in which a small group of people controls the country. The debate of American being an oligarchy assumes that elites have power in many aspects of government, such as the Electoral College and the election process,

“How Democratic Is the American Consitution?” written by Robert A. Dahl is a novel that’s main purpose is to “suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1). Robert A. Dahl revolves his book around a few questions. However, the main focus of all the questions are “why should we Americans uphold our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1)? This question is asked because he questions why we uphold something that was written more than two centuries ago. He also questions how democratic our society is because of our constitution. Dahl examines the fact that some Americans have no problem with the constitution as it is today and then he also states that some find it to lack in some crucial areas. Dahl explains that there are seven crucial areas in which the constitution lacks democracy. These include: slavery, suffrage, election of the president, choosing senators, equal representation in the Senate, Judicial power, and Congressional power.

There has been a lot of fuss over big business influencing the government in the United States lately. Now there is no doubt that the business elite have some influence on politics. It can even be traced back to the early 1900’s, when “the People’s Party had disintegrated, but many writers and activists have continued to echo the Populists’ central thesis: that the U.S. democratic political system is in fact dominated by business elites” (). Although there are countless arguments to go against this idea, the questions still comes up today: Is government dominated by big business? Political Scientist G. William Domhoff believes that government is dominated by big business. More specifically, Domhoff believes that owners and top-level managers in income-producing properties are not only dominant power figures in the US, but they also have inordinate influence in the federal government (). Another political scientist however, Sheldon Kamieniecki, believes otherwise. He states that businesses do not really get involved in policies that affect them; and even when they do, their success rate at influencing policies is not consistent. In fact, he believes that other factions have more influence on government policies ().

In the article Americans Are Utterly Powerless, the former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich points out that the lack of meaningful choices is deteriorating American citizens’ basic rights, forcing them to be powerless in nearly all aspects. He argues that the fundamental goal of economy and society are supposed to be benefiting citizens. Instead, the system nowadays focuses on making the top more powerful. As a matter of fact, American citizens become hopeless for that they can account on no authorities for help. This is a social problem existing in America. However, I do not agree with him that Americans are cornered to the dead-end. Even though the society and economy changes to favor the wealthy, there are choices that Americans can make to divert the predicament of powerless.

For the past two centuries, America’s constitution has been the centerpiece of our politics, academia, and philosophy. Yet, the pillar (America’s constitution) that has maintained our nation for over 200 years has fallen short of ensuring the main differentiating aspect of our country for which we jubilate: representative democracy.

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

In 1787, when the Constitution was being written, the people of the United States decided they wanted a democratic form of government. A democracy is “a form of government in which the people rule themselves either directly or through freely elected representatives” (American Government & Politics, pg. 5). Furthermore, a democracy is broken down into two more forms: a direct democracy and a representative democracy (also can be considered a republic). A direct democracy is a form of government, originally founded in ancient Greece, in which the people directly pass laws and make other key decisions. A representative democracy is a form of government in which the people choose their leaders through free elections in which candidates

This policy argues that a small group of individuals, like in the pluralist theory, make major government decisions. Except unlike in the pluralist theory, the elite theory states that this small group shares common traits, usually like fortune and heading major corporations in the country. This theory really resonates in those that believe power lies with those who have the most money. This is not a democratic theory, because it portrays the United States as an oligarchy, meaning that the power is controlled by few rather than many, or even the people as a whole at all. This theory claims that our votes are virtually useless because those in power will twist public policy toward their own beliefs and interests rather than what the people might want. This theory not only claims that a few people have all the power, but also that they can manage to keep whatever they are doing under wraps so the general public doesn’t know. The biggest question to this theory is whether or not wealth really dominates not only American society but also

The United States government [institution that creates laws and policies that guide the people it is appointed over (Harrison, 9)] was established and built on the idea to become a democracy [structure of government where policies are created based on popular opinion of the people (Harrison, p. 14)] by our forefathers as explained in our constitution. However, our understanding of how a democracy should work may not be the reality of how it does work in our current society. On the surface, the U.S. strives to function as a democracy, but with further understanding, can be perceived as functioning closer to an oligarchy [government in which a small group hold the political power (Harrison, p.

America is considered an oligarchy because of one reason, and that reason is that power lies in the hand of the elite wealthy. The majority of the population in America belongs to the middle class. “The preferences of most American citizens have little impact on government. Instead, the responsiveness of government is strongly tilted towards the most affluent citizens” . Those who reap the benefits are the ones creating policies. As U.S. supreme court justice, Louis Brandeis, stated, “America can have democracy or it can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but it cannot have both.” Oligarchy and democracy cannot coexist.

Prevalent flaws within most modern democracies are evident in their social and economic systems. One such problem, in a system that advocates freedom to do whatever you please, is the consequential wealth disparity (Wong, Oct. 24 lecture, tutorial). Aristotle once said that, “democracy is the form of government in which… the free are the many and the rich are the few”. This highlights a paradox of democracy in that it attempts to be equal to all, yet often the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and an increasing wealth divide will influence governance. Constant writes (pg. 12), “wealth is a power more readily available at any moment… more