Democratic Revisionism Revisited Author(s): Lawrence B. Joseph Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb.

, 1981), pp. 160-187 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110918 . Accessed: 27/07/2011 17:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

THE WORKSHOP Revisited * Democratic Revisionism

B. Lawrence Joseph, Washington University
in Thispaperwillexamine recent developmentsliberal-democratic that theory represent different as reactions theoretical to challenges postwar to "democratic revisionism," wellas different to liberal One of reactions the"crisis"of contemporary democracy. sort response, and has of exemplified SamuelHuntington Giovanni by Sartori, been a reassertion the of A is "elitist" different Lindblom theory democracy. rather response representedCharles by and RobertDahl, who have made attempts reformulate "pluralist"theory to the of Bothgroups, "neo-elitists" the"revisionist the and democracy. pluralists," acknowledge, or either that and implicitly explicitly, thetheory practice contemporary democracy of liberal facea crisis somesort. of Their contrasting assessments suggest profoundly different agendas for future liberal-democratic the of theory.

During twodecadesfollowing the World WarII, many liberal-democratic theorists to the attempted reformulate "classical" theoryof in For it "realistic." this their democracy thehopeofmaking more reason, basic approach often has beencalled"democratic revisionism" for (see, in of theories terms "demoof example, Kariel, 1970).Instead constructing cratic the ideals," theserevisionists typically beganby examining distinguishing characteristicscontemporary of Western liberal democracies (e.g., were Dahl, 1956,p. 63). Variousversions democratic of revisionism parinfluential durticularly among political scientists political and sociologists ingthe1950s early and 1960s, although theory the appeared under number a of different used terms such as "polyarchy" designations. Proponents (Dahl and Lindblom, 1953;Dahl, 1956;Sartori, 1965,pp. 124-128)and "pluralist democracy" (Dahl, 1961,1967).Critics revisionism, the of on other to referred "democratic or democratic hand, elitism" "elitist theory" (Walker, 1966;Bachrach, 1967;Thompson, 1970,pp. 22-26). One of the in reasons this for confusion terminology from tendency both (aside the of proponents critics use persuasive and to definitions)that is postwar democratic revisionism contained distinct two actually components, both i.e.,
*An earlier version thispaperwas presented the 1979meeting theMidwest of at of Political Science Association. author grateful Barry The is to Ames,Morris Fiorina, Robert Booth Fowler, John Layson, Michael Parkinson, Robert Salisbury, Woolley, several John and anonymous referees their for comments various on drafts the of manuscript.
American Journal PoliticalScience,Vol. 25, No. 1, February1981 of ( 1981bytheUniversity Texas Press of 0092-5853/81/010160-29$02.30

THE WORKSHOP

I6I

pluralismand elitism. The elitistcomponentwas derived from Schumin peter'snow-famous definition democracy terms elitecompetition of in of elections(1950, p. 269). Democraticelitists deemphasized role of widethe spreadcitizenparticipation, conceiving democracy terms "the formain of tion of a politicalelitein the competitive struggle thevotes of a mainly for passive electorate" (Lipset, 1963, p. 238). The pluralistelementwas the idea of dispersionor diversification power. Thus, democratic of pluralists proposeddescriptive well as normative as models of thepoliticalprocessin termsof bargaining, compromise, and mutualadjustment among competing centersof power. Althoughthe intellectual roots of thesetwo strands were distinct, and althoughdifferent democraticrevisionists different put degrees emphasison elitism of and pluralism, mostimportant influthe and entialexpressions thistypeof theory of involvedbothcomponents, effect in the combining idea of competing eliteswiththeidea of dispersion power of amongcompeting groups(Dahl and Lindblom,1953; Dahl, 1956).' There was a strongconsensus on general pluralist/elitist principles theorists well into the 1960s.2Moreover,demoamong liberal-democratic craticrevisionism witha celebration Western of usuallywenthand-in-hand liberaldemocraciessuch as the United States, or at least withthe assumpand stable,as well as democratic. tion thatthosepolitieswerehealthy The Americanpoliticalsystem, example,was seen as "a relatively for efficient for system reinforcing and maintainagreement, encouraging moderation, ing social peace" (Dahl, 1956, p. 151), and, more generally,Western democracywas characterizedas "the good society itselfin operation" (Lipset, 1960,p. 403). Timeshave changed,however.Throughout 1970s,therehas been a the widespread perception thatliberaldemocracy theUnitedStatesand else(in where) is in a period of crisis. From the beginningof the decade, there seemed to be a new "intellectualconsensus" concerningchallenges to Americandemocracy an posed by economicdislocation,racialconflict, unof and popular war in Vietnam,social disintegration, the inability governmentto respondto such problems (Tinder,1970,pp. 65-66). Going beyond
'For a very useful discussion these of distinctions, Holden(1974,pp. 154-173). see Cf. alsoMacpherson (1977, 77),whorefers the"pluralist p. to elitist equilibrium model." 2During sameperiod, this democratic revisionism notwithout critics. "elitist" was its The component, example, attacked downgrading importance citizen for was for the of participaand neglecting in to and tion for classical democratic ideals itsquest be realistic (e.g.,Duncan Lukes,1963;Davis,1964;Walker, 1966;Bachrach, 1967;Thompson, 1970;Pateman, 1970). The "pluralist" component charged was with, among other things, failing recognize to the handful powerful well-organized of and effective domination the of political process a small by groups failing address problem interestssociety and to the of in which noteffectively are represented-including "public the interest" (e.g.,Kariel, 1961; McConnell, 1966; Lowi,1969).

162

LawrenceB. Joseph

theAmerican situation, some scholars spokeof a "withering away" of Western liberal democracy (Hartley, 1970).Writings America's on bicentennial were hardly that optimistic, noting "thegeneral crisis theAmeriof a can political remains cardinal system of evenifstudents reality ourtime, no longer protest thewarandghetto over in riots nottypically do occur the mid-1970s they in 1967-1968"(Burnham, as did 1976,p. 147). The apdecline theparty of for had to parent system, example, contributedpolitical disorganization, ideological polarization, "total confusion" and (Lipset, suggested possibility a " 'crisis the of 1975,p. 164).One commentator of if regime,' not a crisisof disintegration revolution" and (Bell, 1975, p. 220). Theendofthedecadebrought respite: little "Thereis no question that liberal democracy nowagainfacing is crises magnitude, of crises that This paper will examine recent developments liberal-democratic in that theory represent different to reactions the"crisis"of contemporary liberal democracy, wellas different as reactions theoretical to to challenges democratic revisionism. sort of response, One postwar exemplified by SamuelHuntington Giovanni and has Sartori, beena reassertion the of elitist of These"neo-elitists" thebasicproblem a theory democracy. see as "crisisof governability" from "demandoverload," resulting particularly unreasonably egalitarian demands. democratic selfTheypropose greater restraint a greater and of recognition authority basedon competence and A different expertise.3 rather is Lindblom response represented Charles by and Robert to Dahl, whohavemadeattempts reformulate demopluralist cratic theory. These"revisionist pluralists" argue that theory practhe and ticeof liberal are democracy flawed theundemocratic ramifications of by socioeconomic and corporate inequality power. They see government undermined structures private of authority being raise by power, they and thepossibility extending scopeofdemocratic of the to the decision-making economic realm.Boththeneo-elitists revisionist and acknowlpluralists that edge,either or liberal implicitly explicitly, contemporary democracy facesa crisis somesort.Theydiffer, of overthenature the of however, crisis and overpossible solutions. Mostimportantly, suggest they signifidifferent for cantly agendas liberal-democratic theory.4
3Huntington Sartori merely clearest and are the examples thissortof argument. of A rather more moderate version their of general position be found DanielBell(1976,pp. can in 177-282). other For examples the"demand of overload"thesis with respect theUnited to States, Wildavsky see (1973),Wilson in (1979).On demand overload Great Britain, e.g., see, Brittan (1977).Forother recent arguments linking excesses democracy theexcesses the of with ofegalitarianism,Nisbet see (1975), Diamond (1975), Mansfield and (1978). 'The purpose thispaperis bothanalytical normative. reader no doubt of and will The observe my that ownnormative disposes tobemore bias me sympathetic Lindblom-Dahl tothe I position (although byanymeans not uncritical it). While attempt present fair of a to and I make pretense "valueneutrality." accurate of various no analysis the theorists, of

deserve our realconcern. . ." (Livingston, 1979,p. 16).

THE WORKSHOP

I63

TheDemocratic Distemper
Samuel Huntington not a centralfigure debatesoverdemocratic was in theory during 1950sand 1960s. For example,he was nevera pluralist the in the sense of advocatingdiffusion power. To the extentthat his earlier of writings dealt withtheUnitedStates(e.g., 1965; 1969, pp. 93-139), he was rathercriticalof fragmentation governmental of authority. the same At time,his stresson strongleadershipcould be said to make his viewscompatible with "democraticelitism." Regardless,Huntington'smore recent work,particularly contribution theTrilateral his to Commission's"Report on theGovernability Democracies" (Crozieret al., 1975), constitutes of the mostelaborateformulation whatI am callingthe "neo-elitist"theory of of democracy. Huntington arguesthata "democraticupsurge" duringthe 1960s has contributed a "democraticdistemper,"involving to both an expansionof governmental activityand an erosion of governmental authority (1975, p. 102). More specifically, maintains thattheupsurgeof politicalparticihe pation since the 1960s, in the formof campaign activity, protestmovements,and interest group activity (althoughnot, of course,in the formof in voterturnout elections, whichhas declined),has overloadedthepolitical withan excess of demands,has contributed a declinein governto system mentalauthority, has led to a crisisin thegovernability democracy. and of A major government responseto the democraticsurge of the 1960s was whatHuntington calls the"welfareshift,"i.e., a substantial and significant increase in government spendingfor social welfareprogramsof various sorts.Huntington was arguesthatthisexpansionof government activity the resultnot of eliteleadership, but of responseto "popular expectations and in group demands" (1975, p. 65). These developments have resulted a demand overloadon government, effect whichis theproblemof finanone of cial solvency.The excess of demand results an excess of government in exto penditures, which,in turn,contributes theproblemof runawayinflation (1975, pp. 72-75). The capacityof government impose restraints any to on in major economicgroup is especiallydifficult the Americanpoliticalsystem,wherea pluralistic structure policy-making providesmultiple pointsof access forso manyinterest groups(1975, pp. 103-104). Huntingtonargues that anotheradverse effectof increasedpolitical has been ideological polarization,which has contributed participation to therecent in declinein publicconfidence government. democratic The surge of the 1960sinvolveda citizenry morepolitically activeas wellas moreideologically consistenton policy issues. Increases in political participation have, accordingly, been closelyrelatedto polarizationof opinionson policy issues(particularly social and racial issues). Government, however, difhas ficulty responding sucha situation to through traditional its politicsof com-

x64

B. Lawrence Joseph

in promise. Thus,issuepolarization generates distrust government, the as in and confidence inpolitically active ideologically intense strata their lose which to actinaccordance their fail with stitutions policy preferences (1975, pp. 76-78). deThedemocratic distemperalso seenas closely is related excessive to of mandsforequality. to the thrust According Huntington, "dominant was and and the political socialaction"during 1960s clearly egalitarian, the as involved "reassertion theprimacy equality a of of democratic surge the and life"(1975,p. 62). He seesthisdegoal in social,economic, political velopment a recurring as problem American in society, society a witha structure. democratic egalitarian wellas liberal) and markedly (as political Fortunately, Huntington's in view,commitment democratic egalito and tarian valuesis generally intense; not of socialchange, during periods rapid however, these valuesarereasserted: this "In respect, democratic the surge of the 1960sshares with manycharacteristics thecomparable egalitarian andreform movements theJacksonian Progressive of and eras" (1975,pp. 112-113). Takentogether, resurgence thedemocratic the of norms participaof are as to tionand equality seenbyHuntington contributingtheunderminIn of ingofgovernment authority. part, is duetotheexpansion governthis and of to ment activity generated massdemands theinability government by demands madeuponit (1975,pp. 72-75).There howmeet growing the is, to an abouttoo much ever, additional argument democracy contributinga in to decline government authority. Here theemphasis on the failure is recognize needforcompetent, the expert leadership. Huntington the sees a to to democratic surge inpart, challenge authority as, itself-particularly and of based on hierarchy, existing systems authority expertise, wealth (1975,pp. 74-75)."Every form society," Huntington, of says "needsa cerwell." tain measure deference, of to authority, hierarchy function and are Morespecifically, political the conflicts tensions and which likely be to characteristic postindustrial of society"will probablyrequirea more authoritative effective of At and pattern decision-making." thesametime, trends as ideological such and however, polarization increased participation will make more this difficult (1974,p. 190). that sorts problems governability of of may Huntington suggests these be endemic a postindustrial to with educated parand society a more highly A withhigher levelsof education and a ticipant population. citizenry of with knowledge greater sense political efficacy also a citizenry greater is and desire do something to aboutpolitical and socialproblems a greater A aboutthem. moreactive, makes effecparticipatory citizenry, however, tive action more difficult: "Innovation easier is when substangovernment

THE WORKSHOP

I65

tialportions thepopulation indifferent" of are (1974,p. 177).Thedangers resulting fromdemandoverloadsuggest Huntington need fora to the "greater degree moderation democracy." maintains "theefof in He that fective of operation a democratic political system usually requires some measure apathy of and non-involvementthepartof someindividuals on and groups"(1975,p. 114). The integration previously of marginal social groups (e.g.,blacks) intothepolitical system makes system the more demobut cratic, also heightens danger demand the of overload. Thus,insofar as more moveoutofthesphere marginality, groups groups of all needto exercisemore In addition, crisis governability be mitiself-restraint. the of can gatedonlyifwe moderate democracy acknowledging legitimacy by the of claimsto authority based on expertise, seniority, experience, special and A talents. proper "democratic balance" mustbe restored recognizing by thatdemocracy not the onlywayof constituting is authority (1975,pp. 113-114). According Huntington, to maintaining suitable this balancebetween and governmental on authority limits thatauthority "whatconis stitutional is democracy all about"(1975,p. 63). A Defense "Vertical" of Democracy Giovanni was Sartori one of theforemost of theorists postwar democraticrevisionism, the Sartori identified particularly moreelitist variety. with Dahl and Lindblom adopting idea ofpolyarchy by the (Sartori, 1965, pp. 124-128), but,unlike other he revisionists, wasnotadverse theelitist to label.He went faras to saythat so "thedemocratic of is theory elites inthe of light present-day factual the knowledge coreofdemocratic itself" theory has (1965,p. 128). Morerecently, Sartori steadfastly defended elitist the of its or such theory democracy against "anti-elitist" participatory critics, as PeterBachrach that (1967)and CarolePateman (1970). Sartori argues the"anti-elitists beenpreoccupied the'horizontal' have with extension of whileneglecting 'vertical' democracy (i.e., participation), the dimension (i.e., leadership)" (1978a,p. 63). He warns a against "verynaivedemocratic which direct participatory and primitivism pitches democracy against control representation" and Sartori claims favor to a (1975,p. 154).While more andactive heis alsowary participaof informed, interested, citizenry, in conceived terms more of in tory democracy widespread participation actualdecision-making, "whatis gained terms power-sharing in for of is dislost In proportionately interms efficacy efficiency." this of and sense, parcan ticipatory democracy undermine representative democracy (1975,pp. 156-157). In addition hisdistinction to between vertical horizontal and democracy,Sartori between distinguishes and "responsible government" "re-

i66

LawrenceB. Joseph

with a proper balance and sponsive government" is concerned maintaining between two. A "responsible behavesresponsibly and the government" a to demands competently;"responsive government" responds external echoes much Huntington's of (1976,p. 22). On this issue,Sartori demandare overloaded overloadargument. Democratic governments becoming with excess demands an of "arising from revolution rising the of expectamaintains themajorriskto democracy that tions"(1979,p. 209). Sartori liesnotin elites, in theinflation but that to by triggered governments yield too many "Here inflation to class thatoverdemands: points a political in" promises then and gives (1978a,p. 65). Thesedevelopments, asserts, he aredangerous, at thesametime but refute criticisms Western that they representative democracies notgenuinely are democratic becausethey not are to demand oversufficiently responsive themasspublic.To thecontrary, load is an indication theextent which of to Western societies havemaximizedresponsiveness-to pointof neglecting the Sartori's responsibility. stress elites on and leadership, a of then, goesbeyond rejection participatheories democracy. is also fearful representative of He of democracies tory to too He that"the morewe becoming responsive massdemands. insists in haveindulged responsiveness, greater needforindependent the the reis what is all sponsibility-which leadership really about"(1978a,p. 66). A finalimportant distinction stressed Sartori thatbetween by is the "liberal"and "democratic" components liberal of democracy. former The with and is concerned foremost limiting controlling power thestate, the of and henceemphasizes value of liberty the (i.e., "freedom from").The latter concerned injecting is with intothestate popular power and emphasizes the value of equality(1978b, pp. 11-12; 1979, p. 206). Thus, "liberalism a vertical has impetus favor differentiation, (in of unevenness, and eminence) while has of democracy a horizontal (in pursuit coheurge sionanddistributive Sartori evenness)" (1978b, 11).Alongsimilar p. lines, seesa potentially link and dangerous between democratic egalitarian values. He regards meaning definition "equality" thecoreissue stake the or of as at in thedispute between elitist anti-elitist the and theories democracy. of He seesan extreme as conception equality thecentral of valueofhorizontal, or this mainflaw.Bycontrast, participatory, democracy-and is thetheory's vertical democracy recognizes existence needfor the and genuine "elites"i.e., thosewith superior qualities various of sorts (1978a,pp. 63-64).Sartori'sfears perhaps in are moststrongly commenting Schattexpressed on schneider's famous that in remark "theflaw thepluralist the heaven that is chorus with strong a heavenly sings upper-class accent"(Schattschneider, avers that suchan observation 1960, 35). Sartori p. "mayappearprofound butcan onlyhelpthedowngrading democracy a system social of into of

THE WORKSHOP

I67

view,then,the choicesare clear-cut: envy"(1978a, p. 65). In Sartori's in or selection "disselection," equality or meritocracy "immeritocracy," The legacy thelate 1960swas, on of in "deserts" equality "demerit." or (i.e., will verticality negative "Its message noteliminate one: a balance, very drag down"(1978a,p. 61). it it leadership]; canonly elite Position Business of ThePrivileged bothas a reconPolitics Markets conceived and is Charles Lindblom's of of and and of sideration liberalism pluralism as a revision thetheory 1977, pp. and formulated earlier Lindblom Dahl (Lindblom, by democracy of ix-xi; see Dahl and Lindblom,1953). Lindblom'sbasic conception the He essentially sameas before. restates idea the democracy however, is, (or democracy therealterm the ofpolyarchy, Dahl-Lindblom forpluralist Polysystems). political in of worldapproximation democracy operating are as where citizens ableto system is by archy defined Lindblom a political they and free elections where through competitive choose policy-makers top of etc., of freedom assembly, so as to freedom speech, also areguaranteed in ways leaders various political to havetheopportunity try influence to the involves choosIn the (1977,pp. 132-133). a polyarchy, roleofcitizens of the not although through choosing leadership ingof leaders, policies, (1977,p. 148).' Moreover, are policyindirectly citizens able to influence are decision-making. by democratic governments characterized pluralistic (1977, of amonga plurality officials i.e., Authority diffused, divided is and polyarchy between distinction p. 29). (Here,by theway,Lindblom's his also retains viewof seemsto disappear.) Thus,Lindblom democracy mutualadjustment as democratic policymaking a processof pluralistic this of interests competing and centers power.Within amongcompeting Lindblom perhowever, democracy), of (or framework polyarchy pluralist a of ceives number significant problems.6 viewof revision Lindblom's is and The mostimportant fundamental Lindblom critibetween and democracy. power therelationship corporate the position to cizesliberal-democratic for theory failing consider privileged theory democratic someinterest-group analysis, Asidefrom of business.7
latter pp. 1968, 43-52.In the and 1953, 272-286, Lindblom, pp. 'Cf. DahlandLindblom, "The most stating, and democracy polyarchy, between omits distinction the Lindblom work, is regimes thatin democratic and authoritarian democratic between difference conspicuous p. in elections" (1968, 45). makers genuine choose their policy top citizens regimes in is pluralism reflected the revisionist Lindblom's andMarkets, to 6In addition Politics Process (1980). of edition ThePolicy-Making second where he from different someofhisearlier position rather is 7Here,Lindblom's writings, leaders disare the of . .. himself at all interested inwhether powers corporate "not declared with their are degree powers inconsistent is The instead "to what proportionate." realquestion p. in (1960, 73). democracy government"

i68

LawrenceB. Joseph

(1977,p. 5). Moreover, mostcontemporary has ignored corporation the as of all groups having socialscience makesthemistake treating interest in role comparable power (1977,p. 193).Butthepolitical ofbusiness capienterprise talist societies as Lindblom prefers call them, to "private (or, among that group market-oriented societies") notmerely of oneinterest is of system law, for manyothers(1977, p. 170). Under the American not as these fictitious "persons" example, corporations treated persons; are sorts government, they also much on but are only makedemands various of citizens citizens often and haverights ordinary more powerful ordinary than market economy, private business cordo not(1977,p. 5). In a capitalist of publicfunctions makingdecisions by porations perform essentially of the system. Moreover, because its majorsocialimportance within market of business given privia crucial rolein theperformance theeconomy, is process itself (1977,pp. 171-175). leged position within governmental the his power thus leadshim revise to Lindblom's concern aboutcorporate in of Lindblom views still democratic policymaking assessment pluralism. of of power as a process mutual and pluralistic terms, a system diffused as leaders a of officials other and political adjustment among plurality public are however, there a numthat (1977,pp. 29, 158).He nowacknowledges, berofserious adjustment. of mutual defects theactualpractice pluralistic in among of resources Becauseof suchfactors thedistribution economic as and heldby organized opposedto unoras participants the advantages of egalidemocracies farfrom is ganized interests, pluralism pluralist the howtarian for The problem pluralism, (1977,pp. 140-141).8 mostserious on is to initiatives, particularly ever, theability somegroups vetopolicy of issuesinvolving to problems (e.g., energy possiblesolutions collective is The source suchvetopower notthefragmenof policy). most important of of tation government authority, rather privileged but the position busihas of theory, therefore, beenits ness.A serious shortcoming democratic failure conceive a system pluralism to of of without business vetoes-i.e.,a privilege (1977,pp. 345-347).9 pluralist democracy ofbusiness free A related on in position hisemphasis theroleof is revision Lindblom's to Marxist ''socioeconomic class." While wanting embrace not arguments,
(1977, "Lindblom remarks that here suchdefects pluralism "widely in are acknowledged" p. 141), citing critics as Kariel such (1961),Lowi(1969), Bachrach and (1967).He alsorefers to Key somerepresentative pluralist theorists the1950s-Riesman of (1950),Dahl(1956), (1961), work these along lines. andTruman (1951;1959).Ironically, fails mention ownearlier he to his sudden discovery that Thus, arenotenlightenedtothe we as reasons Lindblom's for seemingly the is just corporationnot another interest group. 9Lindblom to suggest fails possible solutions, however, claiming histask"is notto that write prescriptions" p. 348). (1977,

THE WORKSHOP

i69

as one view pluralist ofclasses only of Lindblom rejects "conventional" the demoof (1977,p. 222). Contemporary many determinants socialconflict the of notes, tends overlook effects class(1977,p. 373, to cratic theory, he the not n. 2).1o Lindblom onlyemphasizes waysin whichthe "favored and so forth) wealth, power, with disproportionate class" (i.e., thatclass he on channels political of participation; also focuses dominates important the i.e., whathe calls "class indoctrination," thewaysin which favored (1977, class is able to inculcate valuesin the restof thepopulation its but to of system, wants remains defender themarket a 229). Lindblom p. and whomaintain itis that those (bothconservatives radicals) argue against dissystem a much with more egalitarian impossible reconcile market to the and Lindblom the that rejects argument greater tribution income wealth. of will endanger and efficiency productivity: equality social and economic in marketequality real-world income and wealth "The barrier greater to in. oriented is logic.It is,instead .. a historically systems notanyinternal in assets,earning maintained inequality individual herited politically and and shares" (1977,p. 44). power, income inequality classindocand effects socioeconomic of Theundemocratic which Lindblom-the serve another concerns trination toreinforce problem in For of democracy. Lindindoctrination" pluralist problem "leadership of He is and blom, leadership bothinevitable important. speaks a two-way between leadersand citizens(or more processof mutualpersuasion and and and between more active informed participants lessactive broadly, of democwhich a central is component pluralist informed participants), as their "volitions," Lindblom Citizens express racy(1977,pp. 137-139). as is callsthem, while leaders communicate views towhat postheir political and thisprocess, viewsof citizens the sible or mostfeasible. Through in reconsidered lightof each other(1977, pp. leadersare constantly Lindwritings, cf. 1968,pp. 103-105).In his earlier 137-139; Lindblom, of the to blom more favorably theability leaders alter prefon lookedmuch them. referred thisas "reHe to erences which otherwise constrain might of which facilitatednever-ending a constructive process movleadership," of initiatives policy opening thepossibility innovative up ingcompromise, he to however, points the (1968,pp. 105-106).In Politicsand Markets, in where citizens be inof "ominous"possibility circularitypolyarchy, may havemolded are and which elites doctrinated makeonlythosedemands to is of Celebration reconstructive replaced leadership thus to prepared meet. indoctrination (1977,pp. 202, of byconcern aboutthedangers leadership
(1965), Dahl (1956)andSartori Lindblom as examples cites '"Onthis point, incidentally, work. butnothisownearlier

I70

LawrenceB. Joseph

352)."1 The problem circularityreinforced theprocess classinof is by of doctrination. Thesetwoprocesses enablebusiness legitimize power to its in theminds themass citizenry. ability thecorporation mold of The of to in public opinion various waysserves remove to from publicdebate those "grandissues" which couldchallenge privileged the of position business (1977,pp. 203-204). In light these of related of problems corporate power, socialinequality, andcircularity, Lindblom criticizes liberal-democratic for theory being preoccupied with problems authority government, being of in while insensitive to problems authority of in embodied property rights. Property after is, all, a system authority of which established andprotected government, is by by and weneedto understand adverse the effects property of rights their (and unequaldistribution) democratic on government (1977,p. 8). The "privilegedposition business" of obstructs in democracy at leasttwoways:first, business leaders havea disproportionate in influence electoral in politics, inand in terest-group politics, hence government and policymaking, second, thepower thecorporation a rival theauthority government. of is to of The institution private of business enterprise means that great a number deciof sionswith broadsocialramifications madenotbygovernment, by are but In corporate executives. effect, in then, public affairs Western democracies arein thehandsof twogroups decision of makers-government busiand ness-onlyone of which controlled anyextent is to a through democratic of system authority. to ImpedimentsDemocracy Robert Dahlisgenerally regarded thepreeminent as theorist postwar of democratic revisionism. more His recent work reflects important in an shift emphasis, not focusing on thetheory polyarchy, on the"doctrine of but of procedural democracy." The latteris based on threekey criteria: (1) political equality, that requiring thepreferences each citizen given of be in equal weight collective decisions, effective (2) participation, requiring thateach citizen haveequal opportunities expressing for preferences and in participating politics, (3) enlightened and understanding, requiring that citizens have "adequate and equal opportunities" formulating for their
"The toneof these remarks Politics Markets strikingly in and is different that from of Politics, Economics, and Welfare, where"social indoctrination" the "desirability in of democracy" saidto be an important is preconditionpolyarchy of (Dahl andLindblom, 1953, pp.287-294).

THE WORKSHOP

I7'

now emphasizes question making the in of polyarchy theUnitedStates in in more democratic, of particularlyterms theideasembodied hisdoctrine of procedural of democracy. as he putsit in thetitle one of hisrecent Or, he articles, is concerned "Removing with Certain Impediments Democto in racy theUnited States"(1977). One important to the impediment democracy arisesfrom conflict between America's early historical commitmenta liberal to political conand and to stitutional order itslater commitmentdemocracy the1830s).We (in havebeengiven, Dahl argues, constitutional a legacy adverse democracy to in many in ways,particularly itsvarious institutional impediments mato of rule.Our commitment thisframework government to jority entails the of different confounding tworather ideas:(1) theclassical liberal ideathat thereare certain fundamental whichgovernment shouldnot be rights allowed violate; (2) thenotion theparticular ofinstitutional to and that set in is embodied theU.S. Constitutionrequired order prein arrangements to serve those fundamental Our to these two rights. failure distinguish between ideashas led us to confuse fundamental rights existing with privileges and, at thesametime, failto seehowourconstitutional to makes easier it system forprivileged in minorities prevent to changes thestatus thanitis for quo to majorities enact reforms (1977,pp. 5-6). The sameproblem be seenin thecontext thepluralism recan of that an Dahl still mains integral of Dahl's normative views social part position. and of associations essential as diversity theautonomy secondary characteristics democratic of insofar whathe calls "organizapolitical systems, as of tionalpluralism" related themaintenance freedom opposition. is to of in His emphasis herehas changed thatwhile somewhat, thathe admits pluralism its virtues, can also createproblems. any pluralist has In it society, political inequalities and amongassociations, henceamongindividuals, boundto develop are (1979b, 367).Morespecifically, p. a pluralistwo criteria procedural for '2Itshouldbe notedthatDahl also introduces subsidiary that requires thedemoshave "the exclusive democracy: control theagenda,which (1) of are what opportunitymakedecisions determine matters and arenotto be decided to that by that which means procedural of democracy" (1979,p. 107);and(2) inclusiveness, requires the except transients" (1979,p. 129).Cf. demos"include adultmembers theassociation all of for democthe main criteria procedural Dahl,1977, 12.Despite newterminology, three p. the for which necessary conditions a democracy" racy almost are precisely sameas the"three the difthey Dahl setoutin hisbookPolyarchy (1971,pp. 2-3). Moreover, arenotsignificantly listed A Preface Democratic in to ferent from "definitional ofpolyarchy" his characteristics
Theory 956, p. 84). (1

preferences (1977, pp. 11-12; 1979a, pp. 101-104; 1979b, p. 363).I2 Dahl

I72

Lawrence Joseph B.

order degenerate a system can into which reinforces position the ticpolitical at of powergroups theexpense relatively of powerful well-organized and "A of groups: particular constellation organizalessand poorly organized a in mutual vetoes can prevent tional system which pluralism produce stable in of structural changes the thereduction inequalities more and, generally, status quo" (1978,p. 199). and to democracy political Another of impediments procedural set capitalism, beginAmerica's commitmentcorporate to equality arosefrom social century. Dahl arguesthattheagrarian ningin thelate nineteenth America, with Lockeanvaluesystem, its order early of nineteenth-century order with but the wasrelatively compatible democracy, that newindustrial property made of was muchless so. WhiletheLockeandefense private it of farmers, somepolitical sensein a society composed largely yeoman Nonetheless, appliedto corporate capitalism. maderather sensewhen less was from farm thebusiness the to and this enterprise, the ideology shifted farmer. a result, As as took corporation on thesamelegitimacy theyeoman in was to theautonomy society nowgranted granted individuals an agrarian tothecorporation (1977,pp. 7-8). order effects theriseofthenewindustrial of One oftheundemocratic wealth, status and muchlarger inequalities income, in was thatit created in much greater Theseinequalities turn generated thanhad existed earlier. within demosin terms political the of resources political and differences that commitmentprocedural to skills (1977,pp. 7-8). Dahl argues a serious limits theextent on to either putting "effective democracy mustinvolve resources," asor can into which economic resources be converted political are that"economic resources muchmoreequallydistributed than suring least," at (1977,p. 16). "At thevery are States present" they intheUnited and of of to ought be saysDahl, "thequestion distribution wealth income politics" (1977,p. 16).'13 high theagenda national on of In addition generating the to greater socioeconomic inequality, supercreated another ontocorporate capitalism imposition Lockeanideology of
3 of inequality concerning undemocratic the effects socioeconomic 'Thislineof argument in the which be regarded a transitional for can as work is foreshadowedAfter Revolution?, constitute a substantial in income, property and Dahl. Hereheargues inequalities wealth, that about undemoto These arguments the equality (1970,pp. 105-115). barrier effective political should contrasted Dahl'searlier with views inequality be cratic effects socialandeconomic of "cumulative inequalities" "dispersed and between in WhoGoverns?, where distinguishes he Cf. (1961,pp. 227-228). the being characteristicpluralist of democracy inequalities," latter to of alsoA Preface Democratic Theory, where discusses effects socialclasson political he the the classes because their of "relatively Here faced the by lower participation. henotes obstacles that "disfranchise themselves" because of limited accessto resources," alsoobserves they but passivity" (1956, 81). p. "their propensity political for

THE WORKSHOP

173

order legitimized power the impediment democracy. newindustrial to The it democratic controlsof theprivate corporation as to protect from so structure theenterprise of (which bothin terms theinternal of authority of of conwas,ofcourse, hierarchical) interms theimposition external and that needto abandon we trols government by (1977,pp. 7-8). Dahl argues of theextension theLockeanviewof property theprivate to business corThe question thecontrol corporate of of enterprise shouldbe poration. of on socialgoals-including democratic posedin terms itseffects broader we '4 he goals. In this regard, says, needto be opento newideasconcerning of thegovernance corporations, particular, application theprinof in the 15 enterprise (1977,pp. 15-16). ciples procedural of democracy economic to authority threatened is FromDahl's perspective, then, governmental but not structures power subof notbyan excess democracy, byprivate of In to Dahl to controls. contrast theneo-elitists, wants exjectto democratic the not it. is tend scopeofdemocratic authority, restrict Thisoutlook maniof but not power, also in hisviewof fested onlyin hiscriticisms corporate which rather different in view is from theroleof "experts" a democracy-a and of thoseof Huntington Sartori.One of Dahl's criteria procedural so can is by they democracy "enlightened understanding" thecitizenry, that on their and preferences have adequateknowledge formulate express to Dahl regards various publicissues(1977,pp. 11-12;1979a,pp. 103-105). thegreatest to to contemporary challenge democracy be theideaofmeritocthat elite and knowledge racy, thenotion "a meritorious ofexceptional i.e., Dahl acknowledges need the virtue ought govern" to (1979a,p. 109).While that have forexpertise certain in he matters, also insists thecitizenry final must havetheexclusive of "The demos control theagendaina democracy: are that what to opportunitymakedecisions determine matters andarenot to be decidedby meansof procedural democracy" (1979a, p. 107). On citizens to to of it ordinary many policy issues, course, is unrealistic expect haveadequate so must haveenough technical themselves, they knowledge to On accessto "experts." theother hand,notesDahl, it is difficult keep their is to be role evenifwe assume that under democratic experts control,
Dahl where the to is "Again,thislineof argument similar thatin After Revolution?, He as enterprise. of corporation a private to maintains itis misleading conceive thelarge that the p. rulers" (1970, 115)andraises by of authority private criticizes "appropriation public the institutions 115-140). (pp. of governance economic of democratic possibility more of socialism the to Dahl is willing consider possibility combining '5Along similar lines, economic depends upona capitalist pluralism thatorganizational He with pluralism. denies enterprises, of or ownership economic for system. keyquestion himis notprivate public The "A socialist order are decisions decentralized. decentralized the to butrather degree which in order, as pluralism exists anynonsocialist organizational . just might . . generate as much andperhaps gooddealmore"(1978, 195). a p.

174

LawrenceB. Joseph

to information aboutmeansand notaboutgoals. It is confined providing aboutmeansfrom decidecisions notpossible completely disentangle to the can determine latter. Thus, sionsaboutends,sincetheformer often for endsand meritocracy Dahl concludes: "Democracy onlyforgeneral for meanswillsoon becomemeritocracy bothmeansand ends" (1977,
p. 18)"6

Pluralism Neo-Elitism Revisionist and discussion twocontrasting are What be gleaned can from foregoing the of of democreassessments thetheory practice contemporary liberal and the and pluralist positions diagnose racy.First, neo-elitist revisionist the Sartori different terms. Huntington and fundamental problem rather in with is it that mainproblem contemporary the liberal democracy that argue in certain of mass Thatis, becauseof upsurges forms is too democratic. demands being madeon governpolitical participation, aretoo many there democratic government(particularly egalitarian demands).Moreover, to massdemands. ments havebeen(orhavetried be) tooresponsive these to and are (Put differently, becausetoo many groups individuals articulating of has the democracy beenupset.) too many interests, equilibrium pluralist All ofthis contributed an undermininggovernment to of authority and has a crisis governability. of Lindblom Dahl,on theother that and hand, argue different reasons. They emphasize the liberal democracy flawed rather is for system ableto exercise are disways which in certain groups thepluralist in which vetoing policies wouldthreaten proportionate powerby effectively Moregenerally, critical of their and privileges. Lindblom Dahl are highly of and inequality corporate theundemocratic ramifications socioeconomic power. also rather different The neo-elitists revisionist and pluralists advance that and maintain government authority prescriptions. Huntington Sartori is being undermined too much democracy. Accordingly, argue they that by bothliberal-democratic and democratic the practice must recognize theory to in their needforthemasspublic exercise greater self-restraint demands as on government, acknowledge must and competence expertise legitimate basesof authority, must and restore proper a balancebetween leadership and responsiveness, between between the indifference participation, and of and of Lindblom Dahl, on theother and power elites thepower masses. being seriously compromised vast by hand,seetheideaofpolitical equality in of and wealth. Moreover, they see inequalities thedistribution income
"6Dahl's criticism meritocracy be contrasted of can withhis discussionof competence a as criterion legitimate of in authority AftertheRevolution?(1970, pp. 28-40).

THE WORKSHOP

I75

of by power, government authority beingundermined structures private that that serious a Hence,they argue particularly of thelarge corporation. to a redistribution ofeconomic commitmentdemocracy requires substantial of the resources, they and raisethepossibility extending scope of demotothe realm. cratic decision-making economic Critique Neo-Elitism of I born-again Schumpeterians. Huntington Sartori and are, in effect, shall not reiterate herethe well-known critiques the elitist of theory of made by Duncan and Lukes (1963), Davis (1964), Walker democracy (1970),andothers. It (1966),Bachrach (1967),Pateman (1970),Thompson democratic elitism not is is worth emphasizing, however, thisrevived that of in a defined terms competiof simply reassertion theideaof democracy tionforleadership. neo-elitist The position also a resuscitation theold is of in et "virtues apathy"thesis prevalent the1950s(e.g., Berelson al., of so of argument 1954,pp. 305-323), wellas a reincarnation Schumpeter's as about"democratic self-control" (1950,p. 294). as deficient both on The neo-elitist position be criticized seriously can and is First, Huntington's argument based empirical normative grounds. claims.The idea thatthesoof empirical upona number unsubstantiated of to and called"welfare shift" the 1960swas a response massdemands For is the massparticipation highly questionable. one thing, democratic to of was related Warand to social surge the1960s primarily theVietnam for etc. suchas civil feminism, ecology, It is rather issues, rights minorities, of that participation translated implausible, however, thesesorts political shift into so The conHuntington. most readily thewelfare which concerns of the troversial socialwelfare program the1960swas,of course, Waron suggests theimpetus that for Poverty. mostof theavailable But evidence massdemands camenotfrom (from poor,for the theantipoverty program but from elites 1968, example), rather governmental (see,e.g., Sundquist, ' 7Be as the was short-lived pp. 111-154). that itmay, Waron Poverty rather be as of in and cannot identified theprimary source increases government share thenonmilitary of of portion thefederal spending. farthelargest By of to in has budget recent years beenin theform transfer payments indiin the professionals" theexecu(1970, 21-37)emphasizes roleof"policy pp. "iMoynihan see different branch. a somewhat For (1971),whodo interpretation,PivenandCloward tive and demands. however, the that Great They argue, the seea link between WaronPoverty mass a administration attempting manage to by weredeveloped a Democratic Society programs blacks. unanticipated An consequence unstable electoral constituency-urban new, potentially of sorts antipoverty was from by of ofthose programs thestimulation pressure below various 1971, 248-340). (Piven Cloward, and andwelfare rights pp. groups

176

Lawrence Joseph B.

programs as such in viduals, particularlytheareaof SocialSecurity-related insurand Medicare, to thedisabled, unemployment aid old-age assistance, for 1976, pp. 332-346).The explanation the ance (see, e.g., Schultze, One in areasis notself-evident. might of spending these growth government has that changes havemadememthat factor beendemographic argue a key to of older constiparticularly sensitive theconcerns their bersof Congress of A contributing mayhavebeenthedevelopment orfactor tuents. related this Regardless, is a somewhat interest-group activity theelderly. by ganized upthantheargument about a general democratic different explanation an upsurge with the empirical claimlinking democratic Huntington's While certain interest-group mistaken. of is likewise upsurge egalitarianism in thrust (e.g., civil and 1970s havea clearegalitarian did activity the1960s activity not(e.g., did other interest-group feminist groups), rights groups, environmentalist groups). Moreover, anti-abortion the groups, gunlobby, havebeenonly the which havestressed idea of equality thosemovements thrust the1960sand 1970swas of The moderately egalitarian. egalitarian groups (suchas in of excluded rootedprimarily thedemands previously and racialminorities women)fortheir"fair share,"i.e., forgenuinely poses others) misleadingly theissue Huntington (among equalopportunity. of (1975,p. 62). as "equality opportunity" of versus"equality results" poliAmerican welfare of that HughHeclocontends themainthrust recent but the cies(broadly has construed) notbeenequaloutcomes, rather ideaof the govern"The ideaofcompensatory policy-that federal compensation: representing equally wellforthegroups right-fits ment should things put for equalopportunity is (special treatmentrequired truly thedisadvantaged to prevail) forthose (any the and representing advantaged market-imposed innewpublic losscanbe defined a special hardship). sameholdsfor The as of the action required redress impact selfish is to terest groups (government of (1978, p. 98). This suggests, course, that the privateinterests)" on "masses" are byno meanstheonlyoneswhomakedemands govern'9 ment.
"The broader issueof theeconomic consequences thegrowth thepublic of of sector is well obviously beyond scopeof thispaper.The claimbybothHuntington Sartori the and (among others) government that spending theprime is causeof inflation a matter conis of siderable dispute among political economists. various For views, Hirsch Goldthorpe see and (1978). "SamuelBeer(1977)hasargued itis a mistake attribute that to government overload prito massexpectations demands. alternative marily factors as rising such and An for explanation thegrowth public of spending focuses forces on within government specifically, rise itself, the of the"professional-bureaucratic complex" (i.e., policy professionals thefederal in government) thedevelopmentthe"intergovernmental (i.e., state localpublic and of lobby" and officialsseeking federal assistance various of sorts).

surgein the 1960s.I8

THE WORKSHOP

'77

There has,ofcourse, beenwidespread public disaffection governwith ment thepastdecade,butHuntington's in explanation itis notentirely for in convincing. is correct pointing that ofthedistinguishing He out one feaof tures the1960s theemergence issues readily was of not resolved through theconventional pluralist politics bargaining, of compromise, moderaand tion.One study in suggests thedecline public that trust government in duringthoseyears was closely associated with reactions racialconflict to and theVietnam War. Bothof these in issuespolarized publicopinion sucha waythatattempts government pursue by to centrist policies theeffect had ofgenerating widespread disaffection both on endsofthepolitical spectrum (Miller,1974). Justthe same, declinein public confidence continued the throughout 1970s, wellafter thoseissueswereno longer More salient. importantly, itdoesnotnecessarily follow from ofthis all that government has authority beenundermined demand by overload generated below. from The, factor key which Huntington to consider thebehavior fails is of various publicofficials (especially presidents) relation events in to suchas the Vietnam War and Watergate. One might arguethatgovernmental has not authority beenundermined by too muchdemocracy, by atbut on to tempts thepartof elites bypass, ignore, flout or norms democratic in anddemocratic of under procedures thepursuit foreign policy objectives, in to thecloak of "nationalsecurity," simply efforts defeat or political In of of sorts incidents, claim that democratic opponents. thelight these the of has on to authority beenundermined a failure thepart themasses put by sufficient inelites trust tenable.20 hardly seems Somecomments should also be madeabouttheprescriptions suggested In to and byHuntington Sartori. response thedemand-overload problem, on the Huntington suggests there a needfor that is greater self-restraint part of all groups wellas individuals). Thisargument to distinguish, fails (as with difhowever, amongdifferent groups and different interests rather ferent amounts both of The remains that economic political and power. fact than someinterest groups (e.g., corporations) muchmoresuccessful are others in what wantfrom governthe (e.g.,welfare recipients) getting they To to is to ment. ask bothsortsof groups exercise self-restraint ask less powerful groupsto accept theirsubordinate positionunquestioningly. to on an Moreover, plea forrestraint thepartof all groups constitutes of of of implicit acceptance thelegitimacy unequaldistribution economic In of andpolitical accesstogovernment.terms as resources, wellas unequal of distribution power, amounts a blanket to then, Huntington's argument of endorsementthestatus quo.
thesis the 20Full consideration the"crisisof governability" is beyond scopeof this of issue,see,inter alia, Wolfe (1977).Cf.,also, paper.For theneo-Marxist perspective this on Burnham (1978).

I78

LawrenceB. Joseph

Finally,the neo-elitist argument lacks a coherent theory leadership. of As a result,the proposition thatwe mustrecognizeand deferto authority based on "expertise" and "superior competence" is both misleading and dangerous.If, as Huntington asserts,democracyis only one way of conhow do we know where the claims of "democratic stituting authority, authority"end and wherethe claims of "expert authority"begin? If, as of Sartoricontends,we need to recognizethe necessity "genuine elites," what criteria to be used to identify are them? On these questions,Huntingtonand Sartoriare silent.Moreover,even on those public policyissues whereexpertise has been broughtto bear, the so-called expertsoftendisagree markedly.Economistsdo not agree about the causes of inflation; do sociologistsdo not agree about the causes of poverty;physicists not do hazardsof nuclearpower;demographers notagree agreeon thepotential on the questionof overpopulation; do biologists,chemists, and physicians are notall agreeon whatsubstances carcinogenic; and so on . . . . Most importantly, however, policyissuesare politicalissuesand, as such,are issues of Deference thepoliticalauthority anysetof to involving value judgments. uncritical of their their experts entails,then,the acceptance values, political and Sarbeliefs,theirideologies,as well as their"expertise." Huntington we toripose theissuein a misleading way. The questionis notwhether need theorists would denythat.The quescompetent leadership.Few democratic whatkindof leadership, how it is to be chosen,and to whom tionis rather, itwillbe accountable. Pluralism" Critiqueof "Revisionist Lindblom and Dahl pose difficulties a ratherdifferent of sort, since at level. Lindblom's theyhave beguna genuinereassessment thetheoretical revisionof pluralistdemocratic is attempted theory markedby vacillation and uncertainty. This is especiallyevidentin regardto the issue of democraticparticipation, about whichhe remainsquite ambivalent.In Politics, Economics, and Welfare,Dahl and Lindblom maintainedthat polyarchy requiresa "relatively highdegreeof politicalactivity,"so thatleaderswill be sufficiently and representative responsive(1953, p. 309). On the other hand,they also claimedthatlow levelsof politicalparticipation notnecdid indicatea relative lack of democracy;the important essarily thingwas the to editionof The Policyopportunity participate (1953, p. 312). In thefirst in Making Process, Lindblom observedthat citizenparticipation policyfromcitizenparticipation choosingpolicymakers, in is making,as distinct often desirable:"On policyissues,leadersare bothmorecompetent not and moreconciliatory thanare citizens"(1968, p. 54n). Here, too, theemphasis was on theidea of theopportunity participate thosecitizens to for withsuf-

THE WORKSHOP

'79

he and (1968,p. 114).In Politics Markets, again ficient interest energy and of model rejection therational-activist of thedemostates revisionist the such in of democratic theorists as cratic citizen found thewriting classical a that model"can be suspected being form of John Stuart Mill,saying this Ljndblom exhibits (1977,p. 132).At thesametime, of wishful thinking" bias of participamoreconcern aboutthesocial-class of patterns political of of because hiscriticism thepower tion(1977,pp. 227-228).In addition, the of he of the corporation, is open to the possibility democratizing a of ofindustry, he presentssympathetic discussion structure and authority inYugoslavia (1977,pp. 330-343).21 control experiments workers' his seemsto havemodified viewson Just same,whileLindblom the he reservations. forms democracy, stillhas serious of moreparticipatory is manifested clearly participationmost His ambivalence aboutdemocratic observes Lindblom converges thatof Huntington. with when argument his it makespolyarchy democratic, also less thatwhileclass indoctrination It of socialconflict. is thus conceivable, says serves function dampening the can form democracy of calledpolyarchy survive Lindblom, thelimited that in is way way,orinsomesimilar suchas only when conflict moderated this sees decline of (1977, leadership indoctrination pp. 233,352). Lindblom the of as seriousproblem the future for class indoctrination a potentially for moreand moredifficult capitalist It pluralist democracy. is becoming to the democracies "market-oriented polyarchies") reconcile privileged (or with to of of (necessary theoperation theeconomy) theinposition business of state.The growth of unionsand thewelfare demands strong creasing which turn in of massexpectations, may is these demands a reflection rising indocof be due to thedecline classindoctrination wellas leadership (as of that This the trination). suggests possibility thebreakdown constraints and divisiveness socialdisorder, on massdemands maygenerate political in of needsto be constrained and raisesthequestion whether democracy itself(1977, pp. orderto survive; may destroy otherwise, democracy of Lindexcesses democracy, of 351-354).In thisdiscussion thepossible cites blomnotonly 1977, 353,n. 7), buthe also p. Hulitington (Lindblom, exists "in at reaches remarkably a similar conclusion: principle least,there on an alternative social orderthrough to repression, the one hand,or on It indoctrination theother. is thedevelopment class through and leader ofself-restraint byindividuals groups society" in and both (1977,p. 355).
Lindof structure industry, On pp. 2Cf. Dahl, 1970, 130-140. theissueoftheauthority argufrom work, where rejected he different hisearlier is position markedly blom'scurrent See relations. character employer-employee of undemocratic ments abouttheauthoritarian, 1960, 66-71;cf.alsoDahlandLindblom, Lindblom, 1953, 473-484. pp. pp.

i8o

LawrenceB. Joseph

Dahl's revisionist pluralismis more promising, since he does not exhibitthissortof ambivalenceand vacillation.Nonetheless, Dahl's view of a democracy,while it represents significant modificationof his earlier is theoryof polyarchy, still delimitedby some of the same assumptions. While Dahl has implicitly (althoughnot explicitly) made some significant concessionsto criticsof democraticrevisionism, and while he has moved his closer to the position of participatory democratictheorists, shifthas thantheoretical. been morepragmatic There have been important changes as in in emphasis,particularly reflected his greater concernwithsubstantial and social and economicequalityas a precondition politicaldemocracy for his expanded view of the scope of democraticdecision-making include to but theeconomicrealm.These are nottrivial departures, itis also important of to understand that the philosophicalunderpinnings Dahl's democratic theory remain muchthesame. to The limitsof Dahl's reformulation rootedin his failure respond are revisionism. Further to of developdirectly earlierradicalcritics democratic of for mentof theidea of democratization industry, example,would require democratssuch as Bachsome dialogue withthe theoriesof participatory rach (1967; 1975) and Pateman (1970). For Dahl, the purpose of political is participation stillthe expressionof individualpreferences. however, If, are the the participatory theorists correctin emphasizing educativeor developmental value of participation the individual, for thensuch arguments reininto Dahl's theory.They would presumably mightbe incorporated Dahl apforcethe idea of extending the scope of democraticauthority. but does he explainwhy. does not accept thesearguments, neither parently the Similarly, democraticcitizenin Dahl's theoryis stillan isolated indito vidual. "Procedural democracy"is seen as a processof responding prefor erencesof individualcitizens.Thereis no conceptionof a publicinterest as of commongood and no conception community can be foundin critiques and liberalism RobertPaul Wolff(1968, pp. 162-195) and of pluralism by revision opposed to merechangesin tone and others.Again, theoretical (as clarification emphasis)requires along theselines. Most importantly, Dahl says thatif we are going to be seriousabout to thenour "commitment corporatecapitalismneeds to be redemocracy, considered"(1977, p. 15). If so, thenit would seemappropriate himto for of theorists confront arguments contemporary the democratic from writing a Marxistperspective, most significant whichis C. B. Macpherson, the of in whose work has been neglectedby most political scientists the United different of democratic sort States. Macphersonis a rather one revisionist, who has attempted workout a revision liberal-democratic "to of a theory, revision owes a good deal to Marx,in thehope of making that whichclearly moredemocratic whilerescuing thatvaluable partof theliberaltratheory

THE WORKSHOP

i8i

dition which submerged is when liberalism identified capitalist is with market relations" (Macpherson, 1976, 423). p. that is within Macpherson contends there an unresolved tension liberaldemocratic theory is rooted twodifferent potentially that in and contradictory modelsof humannature. One model,which can be traced back to Hobbes, Locke, and Bentham,sees individuals "possessiveindias vidualists," infinite as desirers private of benefit, infinite as consumers of utilities. The othermodel,exemplified JohnStuartMill and T. H. by as Green, individuals doers, creators, exerters developers sees as as and of human to their capacities (1973,pp. 1-23).Correspondingthese models two oftheindividual twodifferent are meanings liberal of democracy. Historiit the of market But cally, hasusually meant democracy a capitalist society. liberal democracy also mean(alonglinessuggested John can by Stuart Mill a for andothers) society striving ensure to equaleffective freedom all individuals use and develop to their capacities, a society i.e., striving maxito mizethe"developmental power"of individuals (1973,pp. 40-52; 1977b, not as p. 1). Macpherson proposes weconceive democracy merely a that of of as system choosing for governments, as a kind society, a whole but complexof relations amongtheindividuals constitute political who the comin When do so, the"egalitarian we inherent democracy" munity. principle requires only not political equality, also an "equal effective ofall but right members society useanddevelop of to their capacities" (1973,p. 51; 1977b, pp. 5-6). Dahl's mainobjections corporate to are capitalism thatit generates in resources that creates and it hierarchical struclarge inequalities political to controls. Mactures private of powerthatare not subject democratic ramifications capitalism of run pherson suggests thatthe undemocratic is between market that contradiction deeper, there a fundamental capitalist and ideal of an equal effective to indiassumptions thedemocratic right is inner in vidualself-development. Moreover, there an unresolved tension as liberal-democratic between modeloftheindividual consumer the theory as and of of utilities themodelof theindividual theexerter developer and his or hercapacities. Liberal-democratic can theory becomemorefully this.22 democratic, Macpherson maintains, ifitrecognizes only
in 22Lindblom, incidentally, makereference Macpherson's does to work,although a democratic regards rather misleading Lindblom way. claims, instance, pluralist for that theory and citizens bothas seekers wantsatisfaction as "doers" and "achievers" of (1977,pp. 253-257). this In discussion, Lindblom (1977, 376,n. 26) cites p. Macpherson's distinction beindividuals consumers utilities individuals exerters developers their as of and as and of tween Lindblom tonote fails ownpowers (Macpherson, pp. 1-23).Atthesametime, 1973, however, of Macpherson's equally important distinction between extractive power (characteristiccapitalist market relations) developmental and power (Macpherson, 1973,pp. 40-52).Nordoes acknowledge Macpherson's general argument themaximizationthedevelopthat of Lindblom in mental powers individualsseverely of is inhibited capitalist-market societies.

182

LawrenceB. Joseph

I do notmeanto imply, course, Dahl (or Lindblom) of that inshould his stantly repudiate ownposition thatof Macpherson.23 would for Dahl presumably reject idea of conceiving democracy a kind society the of as of thanas a system government, he still of in rather since defines democracy I procedural terms. am suggesting, that which however, a theory proposes to reconsider compatibility political of and the democracy corporate capitalism to the issuesposedbyMacpherson-a ought confront fundamental the needto examine basicassumptions madein liberal-democratic theory aboutboththeindividual citizen BothDahl and and thelarger society. Lindblom seem inclined reassess to their earlier evaluation thecontempoof rary liberal-democratic Theyhavenot,however, state. howfarto decided go,that whether nottomove is, or toward Macpherson the position reafof firming central, the ethical principles liberal-democratic of theory, rebut jecting "thepresent liberal-democratic and state having as society to failed liveup to thosevalues,or as beingincapable realizing of them"(Macpherson, 1977a, 224). p. Conclusion Sheldon Wolinhas observed political that theories be understood can as "paradigms"-not in strictly theKuhnian sense scientific of paradigms, butin theloosersenseof providing waysof looking thepolitical at world (1968,pp. 139-140). Wolinalso notesthatthedevelopment newparaof in often occurs times crisis: of digms political theory during "The intimate relation crisis between and theory theresult onlyof thetheorist's is not is thattheworld deeply belief flawed of hisstrategic but sensethatcrisis, and itsusualaccompaniments institutional of and thebreakdown collapse of authority, an affords opportunity a theory reorder world" for to the (1968,p. 148).Societies undergo political crises varying of magnitude when cannotrespond to governments effectively rapidsocial change.Political a when an theory undergoes crisis socialand political changes generate acof cumulation anomalies, situations which be with cannot reconciled i.e., theprevailing paradigm (1968,pp. 147-149).
position without is problems itsown.Full of that 23Nor I suggesting Macpherson's am A difficulties paper. few beyond scopeofthis the is, consideration Macpherson ofcourse, of is features hisargument of mentioning. oneofthedistinctive While with theory worth his are weakness hisrelative is a negas of hisconception democracy a kind society,corresponding of issue the of He of as lectof theproblems democracy a form government. doesaddress latter mechanisms the is does Another problem thatMacpherson notdistinguish issueof market these issues, e.g., see, For to property relations. an attempt separate from of capitalist that systems (1977,pp. of types discussion different ofmarket Miller (1977).See also Lindblom's 93-106).
rather briefly the end of The Life and Timesof Liberal Democracy (1977b, pp. 108-114). at

THE WORKSHOP

I83

Whilerecognizing thatwe are not dealingherewithparadigmbuilders of the statureof Plato, Hobbes, or Marx (nor withpoliticalcrisesof the conceive of recentdemagnitudewhichtheyfaced), we can nevertheless in velopments liberal-democratic theory thisway. Duringthe 1950sand in muchof the 1960s,theprevailing paradigmwas democratic or revisionism, the pluralist-elitist theoryof democracy.We mightsay that duringthis revisionists were engagedin the equivalentof "normal period democratic science," i.e., puzzle solvingwithin contextof the prevailing the pluralistelitistparadigm.In the 1960s and 1970s, however,various politicalcrises began to accumulateinto anomalies,i.e., into eventsor phenomenawhich could not be accountedforby the prevailing paradigm.Whilethecrisesof the 1960s have subsided,the issues thattheyposed for democratic theory variouspoliticalcriseshave generated have not. Put differently, recognition of theoretical anomalies. For example,whenLindblomconcludesthatthe large privatecorporation"does not fit" into democratictheory(1977, such an anomaly. When Huntington warns p. 356), he is acknowledging that democracyin the United States has become a threatto itself(1975, p. 114), he is callingattention an anomalyof a somewhat to different sort. has Some might that"pluralist-elitist" democratic say theory been dishas credited undermined, no othertheory emerged replaceit as the but to or We prevailing paradigmin liberal-democratic thought. might say,then,that is a liberal-democratic theory undergoing paradigmshift whichremains una resolved.More accurately, mightsay thatit is undergoing paradigm we splitoverissuesgenerated variouspoliticaleventsof thepast 15 years,as by wellas by theoretical to challenges democratic revisionism during same the in "reperiod. This growingcleavage is manifested the two contrasting formulations" examinedin thispaper. Huntington and Sartori,on theone hand, and Lindblomand Dahl, on the other,see rather different problems in thetheory practice contemporary and of liberaldemocracy. The Huntington-Sartori reformulation consists of largely a restatement of earlier in themes democratic withparticular revisionism, emphasison the elitist of component thetheory. Theywarnof thedangersof too muchmass about the virtuesof apathy,the participation, echoingearlierarguments need fordemocratic and of self-restraint, the importance eliteleadershipall of whichcan be tracedback as faras Schumpeter. thissense,HuntingIn ton and Sartoriare unreconstructed "democraticelitists."As forthemore of strictly pluralist component democratic revisionism, theyaccept theemof pirical argumentabout a multiplicity competinginterests, but avoid as the pluralism a normative position.For theneo-elitists, "crisisof democthe of racy" stemsfrom articulation too manyinterests from much and too the democracy; mainproblemwithliberal-democratic is theory thatit is too and pluralistic too democratic.

184

LawrenceB. Joseph

different direction. reformulation a rather takes The Lindblom-Dahl the at elitism, least Foronething, havedownplayed ideaofdemocratic they and as to own compared Huntington Sartori, wellas compared their to More importantly, perhaps,they have reassessed earlierarguments. havcenters power, of claims aboutcompeting pluralism's earlier empirical is another interest business corporationnotsimply ingdecided thelarge that some of the problems acknowledged group.Here, theyhave implicitly Lindof On hand,to a largedegree, raised critics pluralism. theother by of distrustful concentrated blomand Dahl remain normative pluralists, stems primarily theconfrom of power. them, "crisis democracy" For the and of flictbetween government concentrations corporate democratic with to theory and power, themainproblem liberal-democratic is itsfailure with problem the pluralists, arefaced then, recognize Theserevisionist this. in earlier posiof whatto reject, whatto revise, whatto retain their and seems be a clearrecognition pluralist that democratic theory tions. There to is about of there uncertainty whatkind is inadequate, at thesametime but is pluralism hesiis Theirreformulation democratic of revision required. and oftenambivalent. both Lindblom and Nonetheless, tant,cautious, Dahl haverediscoveredfundamental in liberal-democratic a issue political of revisionism-the that the during heyday postwar theory was submerged and Although they between capitalism democracy. problematic relationship in democratic theory a pluralist-elitist havenotyet beenableto reformulate not in The ought to be underestimated. radicalway,their shift emphasis ramifications socialinof revisionist-pluralist on theundemocratic focus a for direction and of corporate powersuggests verydifferent equality with preoccupation demand democratic theory thandoes the neo-elitist of Thesetwoapproaches entail overload and theundermining authority. theory. for profoundly different agendas liberal-democratic 17 1979 Manuscript submitted December Finalmanuscript received July 7 1980
REFERENCES A Brown. Boston: Little, Bachrach, Peter. 1967.Thetheory democratic of elitism: critique. In Pennock John and . 1975.Interest, participation, democratic and theory. J.Roland W. Chapman, Participationpolitics. York:Lieber-Atherton. eds., in New Polity, (Fall):5-17. 10 Beer, Samuel 1977. H. Political overload federalism. and Public (Fall): 193-224. Bell,Daniel.1975. endofAmerican The exceptionalism. Interest New contradictions ofcapitalism. York:BasicBooks. . 1976.Thecultural N. Chicago: Berelson, Bernard Paul F. Lazarsfeld, William McPhee.1954.Voting. R., and UniversityChicago of Press. London: Temple Smith. Brittan, Samuel. 1977.Theeconomic consequences democracy. of

THE WORKSHOP

185

Burnham, Walter Dean. 1976.Revitalization decay: and the Looking toward third of century American electoral politics. Journal Politics, (August): of 38 146-172. . 1978.Thoughts the"governability on crisis"in theWest.Washington Review of Michel Samuel Huntington, JojiWatanuki. P. 1975.Thecrisis democracy: Crozier, J., and of Report the on governability ofdemocracies theTrilateral to New Commission. York:New York University Press. A Dahl,Robert 1956. preface democratic A. to theory. Chicago: UniversityChicago of Press. 1961.Who governs? Haven, New Conn.:YaleUniversity Press. . 1967. Pluralist democracy theUnited in States. Chicago: RandMcNally. 1970. After revolution? Haven, the New Conn.:YaleUniversity Press. 1971.Polyarchy: Participation opposition. Haven,Conn.:Yale University and New Press. . 1977.On removing certain impedimentsdemocracy theUnited to in Political States. Science Quarterly, (Spring): 92 1-20. 1978. 10 191-203. Pluralism revisited. Comparative Politics, (January): 1979a.Procedural democracy. Peter In Laslett James and Fishkin, Philosophy, eds., and politics society,fifth NewHaven, series. Conn.:YaleUniversity Press. . 1979b. What political is equality? Dissent (Summer): 363-368. andCharles Lindblom. E. 1953. and New Politics, economics, welfare. York:Harper andRow. Davis,Lane. 1964.The costof realism: Contemporary restatementsdemocracy. of Western 17 Political Quarterly, (March): 37-46. Martin. 1975.The declaration theconstitution: Diamond, and and Liberty, democracy, the founders. Public Interest (Fall):39-55. 11 Duncan,Graeme, and Steven Lukes. 1963.The newdemocracy. Political Studies, (2): 156-177. E. in Newchallenges constitutional to in Goerner, A., ed. 1971. Democracy crisis: democracy theAtlantic Notre area. Dame,Ind.:UniversityNotre of DamePress. Hartley, Anthony. 1971. Thewithering ofWestern away liberal democracy. E. A. Goerner, In in Newchallenges constitutional to area. in Atlantic ed.,Democracy crisis: democracy the Notre Dame,Ind.:UniversityNotre of DamePress. Heclo,Hugh.1978.Issuenetworks theexecutive and establishment.Anthony In King, ed., Thenew American political system. D.C.: Washington, American Enterprise Institute. Hirsch, Fred,andJohn Goldthorpe, 1978.Thepolitical H. eds. economy inflation. of CamMass.:Harvard bridge, University Press. Holden, Barry. 1974.Thenature democracy. York:Barnes Noble. of New and Huntington, SamuelP. 1965.Congressional responses thetwentieth to century. DavidB. In Truman, TheCongress ed., andAmerica'sfuture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall. 1968. Political order changing in societies. Haven, New Conn.:YaleUniversity Press. 1974. Postindustrial politics:How benignwill it be? Comparative Politics,6 163-191. (January): 1975.TheUnited P. States. Michel Crozier, In J. Samuel Huntington, JojiWataand on governability nuki, eds.,Thecrisis democracy: to of Report the ofdemocracies theTrilateral Press. Commission. York:NewYorkUniversity New Kariel, S. of UniverHenry 1961.Thedecline American pluralism. Stanford, Calif.:Stanford Press. sity ed. 1970. Frontiers democratic New of theory. York:Random House. V. Key, 0., Jr.1961. Public and opinion American democracy. York:Knopf. New
and Studies(July):46-57. Strategic International

i86

Lawrence Joseph B.

Lindblom, Charles 1960. E. Democracy economic In N. and structure. William Chambers and Robert Salisbury, Democracy themid-twentieth H. eds., in century. Louis:WashingSt. tonUniversity Press. 1965.Theintelligencedemocracy. York:FreePress. of New 1968.The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall. 1977. Politics markets. York:BasicBooks. and New 1980.The policy-making process, ed.Englewood 2nd Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall. man:Thesocialbasesofpolitics. Martin. 1960. Political Garden N.Y.: Lipset, Seymour City, Doubleday. new TheUnited States historical comparative in . 1963.The first nation: and perspective. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. .1975.Theparadox American of politics. Public Interest (Fall): 142-165. Livingston, William ed. 1979. prospect liberal S., A Austin: of democracy. UniversityTexas of Press. J. New Lowi,Theodore 1969.Theendofliberalism. York:Norton. C. in Macpherson, B. 1973. Democratic theory: Essays retrieval. York:Oxford New University Press. . 1976.Humanist A democracy elusive and Marxism: response Minogue Svacek. to and Canadian Journal Political 9 423-430. of Science, (September): Journal Sociology, (1977): 18 . 1977a.Do we needa theory thestate? of European of 223-244. . 1977b. life times liberal The and New of democracy. York: Oxford Press. University Mansfield, Jr. Harvey, 1978.Thespirit liberalism. of Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. McConnell, 1966. Private and Grant. power American democracy. York:Knopf. New Miller, Arthur 1974.Political H. in issues trust government: and 1964-1970. American PoliticalScience 68 951-972. Review, (September): Miller, 5 David.1977. Socialism the and market. Political Theory,(November): 473-490. Moynihan, actionin the DanielP. 1970.Maximum feasible misunderstanding: Community War Poverty. York:Free on New Press. Nisbet, Robert 1975.Twilight authority. York: A. of New Press. Oxford University and UniverPateman, Carole.1970.Participation democratic New theory. York:Cambridge Press. sity A. Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. 1971.Regulating poor: Thefunctions the of New House. public welfare. York:Random Riesman, David.1950.Thelonely crowd. NewHaven, Conn.:YaleUniversity Press. 1965. Giovanni. Democratic New Sartori, theory. York:Praeger. . 1975.Willdemocracy democracy? kill Decision-making majorities bycomby and mittees. Government Opposition, (Spring): and 10 131-158. . 1976.Parties party A and systems: framework analysis, I. Cambridge, for vol. England:Cambridge University Press. . 1978a. Anti-elitism Government Opposition, (Winter): and 13 58-80. revisited. 1978b. relevance liberalism retrospect. Therelevance liberalism. in The Edited of In of of Institute International by thestaff theResearch on Columbia Change, University. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. in In . 1979. Liberal S. democracy Western Europe. William Livingston, A prospect ed., Austin: of ofliberal democracy. UniversityTexasPress. E. and Schattschneider,E. 1960. The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

THE WORKSHOP

i87

Charles 1976.Federal L. In Schultze, and Owenand spending: Past,present, future. Henry L. Charles Schultze, eds., Setting national The priorities: nexttenyears.Washington, D.C.: TheBrookings Institution. 1950.Capitalism, socialism democracy, ed. NewYork:Harper and 3rd Schumpeter, Joseph. andRow. L. James 1968. and Sundquist, The Politics policy: Eisenhower, and Kennedy, Johnson years. Washington, TheBrookings D.C.: Institution. Dennis. 1970.Thedemocratic Thompson, New citizen. York:Cambridge University Press. in 1971.Current In Tinder, Glenn. challenges democracy theUnited to States. E. A. Goerner, in to in Atlantic ed.,Democracy crisis: Newchallenges constitutional democracy the area. Notre Dame,Ind.:UniversityNotre of DamePress. Truman, David.1951.Thegovernmentalprocess. York:Knopf. New 1959.The American system crisis. in Political ScienceQuarterly, (December): 59 481-498. A Walker, L. 1966. critique the Jack of elitist theory democracy. of American Political Science Review, (June): 60 285-295. Wildavsky, Aaron.1973. Government the and people. Commentary (August): 25-32. Wilson, James 1979. Q. American politics, andnow.Commentary then 39-46. (February): Wolfe, Alan. 1977.Thelimits legitimacy: of Political contradictionscontemporary of capitalism. York:Free New Press. Wolff, Robert Paul. 1968.Thepoverty liberalism. of Boston: Beacon Press. Wolin, Sheldon 1968.Paradigms political S. and theories. Preston In King B. C. Parekh, and eds.,Politics experience. and London: Cambridge University Press.