NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Robert Dahl on Democracy In On Democracy, Robert Dahl argues "Democracy and market-capitalism are like two persons bound in a tempestuous marriage that is driven by conflict and yet endures because neither partner wishes to separate from the other" (Dahl, p. 166). The statement is certainly true; however we also need to consider peoples attitudes towards both capitalism and democracy. While democracy is envisioned by the majority of people as something great, capitalism is often criticized, which is not right, since the two are inalienable from each other. Within the course of this paper, we will discuss both democracy and capitalism and provide various arguments as for their interrelation. Also, the future of democracy will be discussed based on the contemporary perspectives.
Democracy and free-market capitalism seem to suffer from image problems -- opposite ones, as it happens. Capitalism is much better than its image; Democracy has turned out to be much worse. Although capitalism is generally given credit, even by its detractors, for generating wealth and stimulating economic growth, it is commonly maligned for its seeming celebration of greed. But actually, capitalism tends to reward business behavior that is honest, fair, civil, and compassionate. And it inspires a form of risk-taking behavior that can often be characterized as heroic. (Michel, p. 77) Meanwhile, democracy is often presented in an idealized manner: citizens participating on an equal basis in enlightened deliberations about the affairs of governance. By contrast, actual democracy is often found to be disappointingly wanting -- notable chiefly for discord, inequality, apathy, hasty compromise, political and policy ignorance, and manipulative scrambling by special interests.
These disconnections can have significant, and often detrimental, consequences. The mismatch of capitalism with its image can damage economic growth, particularly if people in business embrace the negative stereotype. The democracy mismatch can eventually result in cynicism about the democratic process -- even to the point of inspiring a yearning to scrap the system entirely. The negative perception of capitalism has been propagated not only by communists and socialists, but by the church, popular culture (including capitalist Hollywood), intellectuals, aristocrats, and often by capitalists themselves -- particularly those who have lost out in the competitive process. (Lipset, p. 86) Swindlers and moral monsters sometimes do become rich (in both capitalist and non capitalist systems), but contrary to the popular notion, capitalism by its nature rewards many virtuous behaviors. It generally inspires industriousness, farsightedness, diligence, and prudence. Businesses have found that "Honesty is the best and most profitable policy, " that "A happy employee is a productive employee, " and that "The customer is always right. " (Lipset, p. 93) These are soundly practical guidelines, and part of a broader set of self-effacing moral principles that are, on average, wealth-enhancing.
This is not to say that capitalists necessarily and always behave virtuously. Many, indeed, have lied, cheated, acted shabbily, and let themselves be dominated by arrogance and ego. But such behavior is economically foolish. Nor does the existence of the capitalist virtues mean that there is no room for government, or that capitalism can be entirely self-regulating. Societies may find it useful, usually for non-economic reasons, to use tax policy and regulation to redistribute wealth, to aid the unfortunate, to enhance business competition, to regulate for public health and safety, or to control undesirable side effects such as air pollution.
Societies may also consider it desirable to ban or inconvenience the propagation of certain goods and services for which there is profitable demand -- like drugs, pornography, prostitution, cigarettes, liquor, and gambling. And it should be emphasized that capitalists do not pursue virtue to the point of stupidity: Virtues do not require one to cut an unfavorable deal or trust a swindle. But virtue is, on balance and all other things being equal, essentially smart business under capitalism: Nice guys, in fact, tend to finish first. Some scoundrels do become rich, even as some heavy smokers escape cancer. But just as not smoking is, in general, good for your health, virtuous business behavior is, in general, good for your bottom line. Capitalism's image mismatch can hamper economic development -- because without the unacknowledged capitalist virtues, countries remain mired in poverty.
Fortunately, virtuous capitalist behavior does not need to be artificially imposed by outside authority where it is lacking, because it can arise from normal competitive pressures. For that to happen, however, market competition must be allowed, and sometimes the widely accepted negative view of capitalism keeps this from happening. Democracy suffers from the opposite image problem. After democracy came into being in large countries some 200 years ago, a remarkable dilemma emerged.
On the one hand, democracy worked rather well: when compared to competing forms of government, democracy produced more humane, flexible, productive, and vigorous societies. It yielded responsive and able leaders (at least in comparison to most kings, czars, or dictators). On the other hand, democracy hasn't come out looking the way many theorists imagined it could or should. It has been characterized by a great deal of unsightly and factionalised squabbling among self-interested, shortsighted groups. And most citizens seem disinclined to deliberate on politics the way idealists would like. (Pippa, p. 134) Theorists and reformers have generally responded to this with disappointment. Some conclude that democracy is just an attractive, impossible dream.
Others try to refashion democratic institutions -- and sometimes human nature -- to approximate more nearly their rarefied theories. Democracy, urged John F. Kennedy, "requires the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraint, a willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the general interest, and it also requires knowledge. " (Lipset, p. 171) These kinds of claims only result in a bigger mismatch between democracy's reputation and the realities of human nature. And the blame lies more with our ideals than with the facts of life. The truth is, perfect democracy is an oxymoron, and the undisciplined, chaotic, and essentially unequal interplay of "special interests" is democracy's whole point. () The inevitable contrast between democracy's rough-and-ready reality and the hopelessly idealized conception so sonorously promulgated by people like Kennedy only inspires the very cynicism that democracy idealists bemoan and profess to want to reduce. What purists like to dismiss as "politics as usual" is actually just real democracy in action. (Pippa, p. 173) Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery in Lake Wobegon, a Minnesota town invented by humorist Garrison Keillor, operates under the sensible, if rather un exhilarating, slogan: "If you can't find it at Ralph's, you can probably get along without it. " (Keillor, p. 123) Both democracy and capitalism have triumphed, despite their image problems, in large part because people have been persuaded to accept a version of Ralph's slogan: The systems don't supply everything, but if you can't get it with democracy and capitalism, you can probably get along without it.
It is possible to create a society in which order reigns supreme, where there is none of the disorienting "churn" that characterizes both capitalism and democracy. But bitter experience shows such a society comes at the cost of flexibility, responsiveness, intellectual growth, and individual freedom. It's therefore better, on balance, to get along without the blessings an orderly society can bring. Likewise, capitalism requires toleration of a considerable amount of insecurity, risk, and uncertainty. It may be possible, at least in principle, to design an economy in which individual station, prices, employment, and essential provisioning are authoritatively controlled. We " ve learned, though, that that approach stifles the invigorating effects of economic liberty, leading to slower growth and significantly less wealth overall.
Experience thus suggests it is better to get along without total economic security. Both capitalism and democracy leave individuals free to pursue their interests, recognizing that some will simply do better in the pursuit than others. Unequal results will often emerge -- because people have different capabilities. For some persons, particularly for those who are inclined to overrate their own abilities, this condition is deeply unpleasant, even unbearable. They become resentful.
Inequality will sometimes also result just because people have different luck. Some individuals just happen to be in the right place at a crucial moment. Sometimes an ill-considered, even foolish, gamble just happens to pay off. In an important sense, then, freedom is notably unfair. But democracy is perhaps worse than capitalism in this regard. Capitalism does not profess to make everyone equally wealthy.
The beguiling notion that "all men are created equal, " however, has often been taken to suggest that some sort of equal outcome is guaranteed. (Pippa, p. 185) Democracy, then, might seem somewhat hypocritical. Capitalism and democracy can't supply complete orderliness, certainty, equality, security, and fairness. They are thus only pretty good -- in the Ralph's Grocery sense. The laid-back perspective of the folks at Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery isn't very exhilarating, but it nicely avoids the dangers of over promising. And compared to their respective images, capitalism and democracy are pretty good in opposite senses. Democracy compared to its image is merely pretty good.
While capitalism compared to its image is actually pretty good. I suggest that one test of a fundamentally sound social institution is whether it can function adequately without demanding that people rise above the ignorance and selfishness with which they have been so richly endowed by their Creator. To put it gently, human beings are a flawed bunch, so any institution that's going to be successful had better be able to work with human imperfections, rather than requiring that the race first be reformed into perfection. We " re very fortunate that democracy doesn't require people to be good or noble, but merely to calculate what is best for them or their society, and then to act only if they happen to be so inclined.
We are very fortunate that capitalism raises and transforms selfishness and acquisitiveness into higher purposes. Democracy and capitalism simply cannot exist separately, since on is in fact the requirement for the other (at least in the political theory). There are a number of implications that this contradictory relationship imposes on the future of democracy. First of all, to some extent, democracy and capitalism limit each other: without democracy, capitalism might have evolved into something that would not be as fair and market driven as nowadays; and without capitalism, there would not have been solid material ground for establishing democracy.
Thus, the relationship between the two implies tat as long as it is proportionate and adequate enough, everything would work out well in the contemporary societies; if some of the variables are changed, however, it would have tremendous influence on society as a whole. The future of democracy is rather vague though, since there are a lot of other variables that both limit and promote democracy besides capitalism. Current crisis in Iraq is the best example: although the global community is strictly against the war, the United States of America, supposedly one of the most democratic countries in the world, freely violates international and domestic conventions concerning international law and warfare. Although capitalism mainly supports democratic regimes, this is an example when capitalistic society is able to promote its interests despite all the international issues and controversies that arise because of those issues.
Words Count: 1, 830 Bibliography: Dahl, R. On Democracy. Yale University Press, 1999. Michel, G.
The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Keillor, G. Lake Wobegon Days. New York: Harper Collins, 2001. Lipset, S.
American Democracy in Comparative Perspective. Michigan: Zondervan publishers, 1999. Pippa, N. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Free research essays on topics related to: human nature, economic growth, pretty good, special interests, market capitalism
Research essay sample on Robert Dahl On Democracy
