Three Paradoxes of Democracy

1. Three Paradoxes of Democracy • Ideas of Larry Diamond

2. 1. Conflict versus Consensus • Democracy is a system of institutionalized competition for power. • Too much conflict can yield instability • Democracy requires conflict - but not too much. • Cleavage must be tempered with consensus

3. 2. Representativeness versus Governability • Democracy disperses power, prevents its excessive concentration • But democracy must have what Alexander Hamilton called “energy.” • All governments need to act quickly at times. • Democracies need to respond to group demands, and sometimes to resist them. • Too much representation can yield paralysis. • The challenge: to represent conflicting interests without being captured by them.

4. 3. Consent versus Effectiveness • Democracy means “rule by the people.” • But democracies must not only have the consent of the people, they must also be effective governments. • To be approved by the people, democracies must provide effective performanceacross a variety of issues. • But the process of gathering consent is not always efficient.

5. Performance • Democracies doe not necessarily perform more efficiently than do authoritarian regimes. • Authoritarian regimes can ignore public discontent while they press for long-term payoffs. • Pinochet’s Chile is a good example.

6. Performance #2 • Democracies do not inherently perform better or worse economically than do authoritarian regimes. • In the long run, democracies must maintain a broad consensus on economic policy.

7. Performance #3 • But democracies are a more modern form of governance. • Democracies can interact with more complex and heterogeneous societies with modern economies. • Modern and growing economies often require modern governmental systems in order to continue to grow in size and complexity.

8. Adding Stability • One relatively easy way to add stability to a democracy is to make is somewhat less representative. • This can be accomplished in a proportional representational setting by raising the electoral threshold. • Germany - 5%, Israel - 1%, Turkey - 10%

9. Ethnic and Party Cleavages • There are four principal mechanisms for managing potentially divisive ethnicity within a democracy. • Ethnic cleavages never die. • They can destroy any society if they are not managed effectively. • Rwanda and Burundi are two examples among many.

10. Four mechanisms • Federalism • Proportionality in distribution of resources and power • Minority rights • Sharing or rotation of power

11. Federal systems • Disperse conflict, transferring it to local and state levels • Generate intraethnic conflict, pitting different factions of ethnic group against one another in the struggle to control local and state governments • Induce interethnic cooperation, forming coalitions along changing issue lines

12. Federal systems #2 • Generate crosscutting cleavages when some ethnic groups are split into different states, with different interests, advantages, and needs • Reduce disparities by enabling backward and minority peoples to rise within their own state educational and bureaucratic systems.

13. Federal systems #3 • Federal systems give all major territorially based ethnic groups some control over their own affairs, and some opportunity to gain power at multiple levels. • But... STABLE DEMOCRACY IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A SOCIETY WHERE ETHNIC CLEAVAGES ARE DEEP AND POWER IS HEAVILY CENTRALIZED.