Democracy is described as the conviction in human liberty and equality, or a form of governance founded on this idea, in which authority is maintained directly by the people or elected leaders. Democracy has emerged as one of the most popular political systems of administration over the past ten years, primarily due to the collapse of communism. Authoritarianism and Nazism also posed a threat to democracy, making communism, not the only adversary. Despite becoming widespread, democracy is still present in fewer than half of the world’s nations. According to Robert Dahl, a perfect democratic system must adhere to several criteria, including equal and practical cooperation in expressing agreements, the notion of one person, one vote. In addition, informed political education, giving locals the majority of the control over how motivation should be set, and providing equal opportunity for permanent residents are also among the criteria that Dahl advocate.
Dahl explores the differences between legitimate democratic regimes and old republics, going back to earlier times of democracies. He asserts that these legendary governments are identical (Dahl, 2003). Dahl lists the following six essential elements of a democratic government: liberty of assembly, representatives chosen by the people, freedom of speech, fair elections, freedom of the press, including access to alternative sources of information, and inclusive citizenship. Whether the American Constitution is representative of a democratic body of law is raised in Robert Dahl’s book, how Democratic is the U.S. Constitution? The book’s premise is straightforward: Dahl makes numerous criticisms of the Constitution, the American system, and how public views of the system have changed how democratization is practiced (Dahl, 2003). In addition, Dahl offers several assertions on the Constitution’s design. Despite its contentious character, the book makes several perceptive points and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the American Constitution.
According to Robert A. Dahl, the Senate’s constitutional structure does not adhere to democratic values. The Framers’ original intention of “majority rules” in a democracy is not reflected in the second chamber’s disproportionate representation (Dahl, 2003). Dahl claims that the Constitution supports the unequal representation of residents in leadership positions and the various levels of government, which impedes democracy in the nation. First-past-the-post elections are used in the American electoral system. The majority votes in this system determine who wins. Dahl claims that this system aims to establish two-party systems throughout the nation. According to him, the difficulty with the two-party system is that one party typically enjoys greater popularity than the other (Dahl, 2003). As a result, a party must increase its participation in the popular vote as well as its number of seats. This circumstance develops a multiparty system and a coalition government in the nation.
According to Robert’s assertion, “Equal representation in the Senate has failed to defend the rights of the poor minority while affording unequal rights to highly wealthy minorities such as enslavers (Dahl, 2003).” According to these remarks, even though the law is lauded as the basis for democracy in the nation, it has failed to provide equal democracy to all Americans (Dahl, 2003). It has wings that cover various groups of individuals in the nation besides minority groups, including the wealthy. Dahl claims that no matter the state’s population, each is given two senators. Despite populations of only 545,000 in Wyoming and 37 million in California, each state has two senators (Dahl, 2003). It is unreasonable that only 7% of citizens with the same status as others have nearly a quarter of the representation that a quarter of the population enjoys.
The minority can overturn the majority, which is one effect of this unbalanced system. This means that despite California having a far greater population, Alaska and California would have the same number of votes in the Senate if a law were being considered (Dahl, 2003). For instance, a Senate proposal for the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act that received much support from the House of Representatives was defeated because states with lower populations opposed it. The purpose of a democratic system is to serve the people, which is defeated by the Senate’s unequal representation of them. The root of this issue is the “underrepresentation of metropolitan regions and overrepresentation of remote regions (Dahl, 2003).” Democracy is about what the people want, and the Senate cannot successfully serve the people’s demands if it does not represent the majority of them.
Dahl is also concerned about the power the presidents and the nation’s judicial system have been given, and he believes that the law should not have given them so vast authority. He claims that because the president serves as the head of state and the chief executive in democracies, he or she is “equal to a prime minister and a monarch combined” (Dahl, 2003). Dahl is also worried about the authority the judiciary is given. He contends that the court is so strong and superior that it can declare a statute illegitimate.
According to his assertion, Dahl claims that the Constitution limits the power of Congress (Dahl, 2003). In comparison to other nations with stable democracies, the Constitution gives Congress an excessive amount of power to decide on economic laws. Dahl, therefore, contends that the nation needs to have a prime minister’s post (Dahl, 2003). He believes this approach is critical to limiting the president’s authority under the Constitution. Robert contends that for the prime minister to have authority over decisions that have a national impact, he must be chosen by a majority of the electorate.
This book’s focal point for discussion is the Voting System. In America, the Electoral College is a significant institution. The Electoral College determines the result of the presidential election (Dahl, 2003). The presidential candidate in the United States may capture the majority of the national vote in the general election, but they fall short in the Electoral College. Such a candidate cannot be sworn in as president in this circumstance. There have been four instances of this predicament in the nation.
In such a case, the winner of the presidency would be the presidential candidate who received fewer votes overall but received more Electoral College votes (Dahl, 2003). Robert contends that this approach does not ensure the people’s democracy in this instance. Robert proposes that the nation should not employ such a mechanism to determine the results of an election. In Robert’s opinion, the electoral colleges are underrepresented in terms of votes, but “individual votes and their influence on the outcome vary a great lot state-to-state (Dahl, 2003).” For instance, a vote from California is worth around four times as much as one from Wyoming. Robert concludes that Electoral College use in America supports democracy and contributes to maintaining the unbalanced kind of democracy practiced there.
According to Dahl, the authority granted to this body causes it to threaten the nation’s sovereignty. First, the nation should reform its laws to do away with electoral colleges and replace them with a system that allows for a direct vote of the people (Dahl, 2003). Robert contends that this is the most effective strategy to ensure that all voters are represented throughout an election. In addition, he suggests that if the popular vote cannot produce a winner, there should be a run-off election amongst the top contenders (Dahl, 2003). He also offers the replacement of the electoral colleges with a system that distributes power equitably among all citizens of the nation.
Dahl fervently supports a polyarchy system of government, which distributes authority among many people. He emphasizes democratic values such that political action reflects government efforts to address more favorable issues to residents with equal opportunity. He points out that the amount of power conferred makes it necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to be given the jurisdiction to declare federal laws that violate fundamental democratic rights unlawfully. The law stops serving its democratic purpose once it goes beyond the bare essentials (Dahl, 2003). His evaluation of the Electoral College’s unequal representation serves as an example of the undemocratic elements of the system. It is unfair that certain senators have more seats than others because they were nominated rather than chosen by popular vote (Dahl, 2003). Dahl’s ideas about the Constitution’s democratic nature are built on historical factors. It is clear from his emphasis on suffrage and human rights issues that they are essential to developing a successful political system.
Dahl explores and clarifies the connection between contemporary democracies and free-market capitalism. Dahl contends that economic disparity results from free-market capitalism (Dahl, 2003). Because it is unable to govern itself, this happens. However, when democracy is governed by free-market capitalism, its potential is limited. Money and power are equivalent in a market-capitalist society. A financially successful person will significantly impact politics, the legal system, and legislation. This contradicts Dahl’s contention that moral autonomy is critical to a true democracy.
Finally, the U.S. constitution’s democratic imperfections are justified because other nations have not appropriated its principles. The nation enjoys a democratically flawless constitution. Robert claims that while the nation has achieved numerous triumphs thanks to its Constitution, no other nation has ever taken a page or an idea from the U.S. constitution to help its citizens enjoy liberty (Dahl, 2003). To further demonstrate the success of the American Constitution, Robert contrasts it with other constitutional documents from other nations. He contrasts American law with other nations whose fundamental political structures have operated more continuously since 1950 (Dahl, 2003). His list includes nations like Israel, New Zealand, Japan, and India. He notes several significant variations across the dockets in his findings.
When Dahl writes “most Americans would probably agree that the basic rights necessary to democratic institutions should be fairly distributed among our citizens. But…democratic principles also require a fair distribution of opportunities to act on those rights and the political resources necessary if citizens are to be able to take advantage of the opportunities. Yet we have…huge disparities in the political resources that citizens require if they are to participate more effectively in campaigns, elections, and influencing policy” , he means that social disparity in political involvement is a central theme in political sociology analysis. Higher income and more educated groups, for example, actively engage in democratic politics. Inequality is less obvious in institutionalized modes of political involvement; that is, class gaps are less palpable in practices like voting than in less institutionalized means of democratic engagement such as engaging in demonstrations. For example, socioeconomic status had only a little impact on election involvement in Western European nations, while lower classes were successfully mobilized by their social groupings and organizations, such as labor unions and political groups.
Dahl also implies that democracy not only emphasizes on the government but also ensures equal rights for everybody. He claims that most Americans would probably agree that the essential rights necessary for democratic institutions should be equitably distributed among our citizens (Dahl, 2003). Dahl backs up this assertion with the five conditions for a successful and real democracy: moral independence, human progress, extreme equality, avoiding dictatorship, general liberty and personality, vital privileges, preserving personal interests, wealth, and tranquility (Dahl, 2003). As a result, a society with a constitution that guarantees and maintains people’ equality is not a real democracy (Dahl, 2003). When describing the merits of democracy, Dahl places a particular emphasis on moral liberty. The freedom to free thought and speech is defined as moral freedom. However, disparity of participation is regarded as uncontentious as long as it does not interfere with the functioning of democracy.
In conclusion, I believe the American Constitution does not truly represent the true democracy that it ought to. This is evidenced by Dahls’ assertion that various constitutional defects imperil on the nation’s democracy. For example, he claims that the Constitution was crafted in an improper context, with issues that would have hampered democracy’s accuracy. Furthermore, he identifies an underrepresentation, the president’s authority, and the judiciary’s authority as constitutional flaws that render the country less capable of dominating the democratic conflict. As a result, alternative remedies to the difficulties should be considered, most significantly revising the Constitution to create a code that protects the interests of all Americans.
Reference
Dahl, R. A. (2003). How democratic is the American constitution? Yale University Press.