In democracy it is essential that everyone has an equal

chance to participate in public affairs. Discuss.

Jack Usher L6M2
Democracy, predominantly in the Western world and indeed in many other
states, is the accepted best system of government over such other as tyranny
and oligarchy. If we are to accept democracy as the most efficient method of
governing over a population, then how is best to define it and its suitability?
Abraham Lincolns triad of rule of the people, by the people and for the
people is often cited as the best way to restrict Bernhard Cricks most
promiscuous word to a set of criteria. Hence, we see one of the most crucial
aspects of democracy is the involvement of the people being governed by it.
However, there is much political debate as to whether there is a necessity for
every citizen to have an equal chance to participate in public affairs and further
division of the degree of involvement if there was to be some. If we are to take
democracy in its purest, Lincolnian form, then equal participation by the
people is crucial to ensure government remains by, of, and for the people. It is
in this in this essay that the strengths and weaknesses of the members of this
variance of theories will be analysed in addition to the claims put forward by
political philosophers that both advocate and reject them.
Direct democracy, arguably the most pure form of democracy in terms of
Lincolns triad, is the division of democratic theory that has direct and equal
participation by all of the citizens at its heart. Often described as market place
democracy, this system involves the regular involvement of all citizens in the
voting for and decreeing of laws that affect them. This particular system was
carried out in the classical Athenian city-states, in which all citizens were
granted the right to attend a regular assembly in which laws were enacted,
executive decisions made and general policy formulated. It was underpinned by
political equality of the classes due to the equal weight of each individual
opinion made government directly responsible to its people. Arguably, this form
of democracy appears both efficient and crucial in the Athenian sense. However,
this sense of direct participation raises serious practicality questions when
applied in a wider sense than the city-states of Athens. National governments
and city councils have jurisdiction over millions of citizens, thus the idea of
bringing all together to mediate on the political agenda would be a next-to
impossible task. When the participation element of direct democracy is
removed, the theory can no longer claim to be direct. In addition, there is no
natural law that states man will obey the laws he himself has made. J.S. Mill
advocated the view that man was short-sighted in his political views; he only
desired policies that would benefit him in the short-term, not considering that
changes that may occur in the long-term (potentially causing disobedience). On
the other hand, the citizens are directly involved with the affairs of government
thus government has no risk of becoming disjointed from the peoples interests.
To serve this purpose political equality, which is achieved through direct
democracy, is essential since the opinions of the minority and majority need to
be taken into account. If such a system is the victim of a tyranny of the
majority, a large number of the population are not being governed by the terms
of their interests. Thus, such a government could not claim to be being ruled by

the people. Finally, the citizens have little reason to abhor a law they
themselves instituted. J.S. Mills argument is indeed valid in the sense that man
would simply seek to quench short-term desires, but it would be a mistake to
limit mans equal participation based on this premise. Indeed, it is Mill along
with Carole Pateman who seek to exacerbate mans participation in public
affairs.
Both J.S. Mill and Carole Pateman put forward the theory of participatory
democracy; a system of democracy in which the participation of its citizens is
increased, similar to mans role under direct democracy. Mill argued that mans
daily life was a perpetual cycle of self-interest, thus explaining his limited
political knowledge and understanding. However, both political thinkers argue
these characteristics are not a result of mans nature, but instead resulting from
his lack of participation in public affairs. They argue participation in political
affairs is essential for democracy itself to subsist since the very action fosters
the qualities necessary for it in its people. Through involvement in public affairs,
Mill argues that man is enlightened; his personal morality is challenged, he has
to apply only principles that exist in the interests of the common good, he is
made to feel one of the community and he will find minds that are more
accustomed to public affairs than his own, thereby allowing man to apply reason
to his understanding and to stimulate his drive for the general interest. Pateman
shares this view that democratic participation is an educative process, and that
it further aids the acceptance of collective decisions. This returns to idea of
citizen participation as in direct democratic theory; people are far less likely to
contravene laws that have decreed themselves. Furthermore, Pateman
elaborates that this element of participation should not merely be restricted to
political affairs. For maximum political education or socialisation to take place,
this governing system must be implemented across all aspects of society,
especially in the workplace.
Pateman argues the current social layout
underpinned by representative institutions at national level is insufficient for
democracy since it only allows the participation of the people at election time.
Hence, we see that this equal participation of all citizens in a polity is essential
for democracy to subsist since its educative process allows man to become
more politically aware, and the active involvement of citizens results in a
decreased risk of abhorrence of decrees and laws. Furthermore, if individuals are
taking part in a decision to affect a certain environment, all men in said area
must participate in order to exert maximum control over his or her life.
However, the benefits of participatory democracy are not shared by
philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, instead arguing political influence and
power should remain in the hands of elites.
Democratic elitism is underpinned by the theory that ruling is a skill,
requiring immense education, intelligence and experience. Plato and Aristotle
advocated this idea, arguing that rule by the people is futile since they are an
uneducated mass, unfit to rule. Plato strongly agrees with the limitations of
direct democracy, dictating that this voting of the mob is neither efficient nor
useful. In addition, the risk of allowing the people influence in public affairs is
due to their lack of conviction; Plato argues rule by the demos would be
unreliable since their allegiances and beliefs are so easily swayed by sophists.

Hence, the need for an expert ruler emerges. Referred to as Philosopher Kings
by Plato, these elites would govern on behalf of the people, supposedly taking
into account their interests and desires. It follows that government would
become far more efficient under the rule of Philosopher Kings since the
multitudinous and varies voices of the people would be distilled into one
coherent leader, and decrees passed would be in the general interest due to the
elites education and skill. However, Platos theory of guardianship here
arguably seems wanting. Predominantly, the