Democracy is defined by Seymour Martin Lipset as “a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the government officials, and… permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major political decisions” (Lipset, 1963, p45). This minimalist view of democracy is therefore a definition which can apply to most countries, providing there is provision of free elections. However the USA, one of the pioneers of democracy, was not designed to be one as such. James Madison argued in Federalist Paper No.10 that America was to be “a republic…government in which the scheme of representation takes place” (Madison, 1787), differentiating republicanism from democracy by claiming it would delegate governmental responsibility to a small number of citizens; what is now considered to be representative democracy. Madison’s avoidance of the term democracy can be attributed to the fact that at the time it “was a nasty word-it meant tumult, violence, instability, mob rule, and bloody revolution.” (Ketcham, 1957, p25). Many argue that democracy is moving backwards towards this, as modern citizens feel disenchanted with the democratic system, leading to disengagement in politics and in some cases revolt from the electorate. This essay will consider how the two main forms of direct citizen participation, electing representatives and using referenda, have developed, and how each is seen to have contributed to a crisis in democracy. It will then evaluate the two main methods of direct participation to determine whether a crisis of democracy exists.
The most common form of direct participation in democracy is through elections. It is argued that a decline in civil engagement or “social capital” has lead to falling turnout rates and disenchantment with the electoral process. Evidently, a strong link between civic engagement and political participation exists; as the quality of government is stronger upon facing a strong civil society. Within a strong civil society a better government is demanded by citizens, but more importantly its performance is dependent on the social infrastructure which facilitates it (Putnam, 1993). The erosion of social capital is seen to have been caused by modernisation and the rise of individualism in Western culture – even in the 1980’s it was questioned whether community and individualism were compatible due to “the fear that society may overwhelm the individual…but also recognition that it is only in relation to society that the individual can fulfil himself.” (Bellah, 1988, p144). This view in which people take on individualistic tendencies means that their community becomes shallower and functions only as a comparative tool rather than a mechanism for interaction. A strong interaction with the community is essential in ensuring voter turnout – many believe it is one’s civic duty to vote, and there is a strong societal pressure that people vote; since a high turnout is in the best interests of society itself. (Atkinson and Fowler, 2014, p42). Upon the threat of publishing voting records to neighbours, voter turnout in a US primary election increased by 8% (Gerber et al, 2008, p38), indicating that citizens feel pressured to carry out their “duty” by others within civil society. Thus, the declining social capital that is experienced in many countries forms part of the crisis of democracy as there is no institution which ensures that citizens participate.
However, others argue that there has only been a change in the form of social capital, as people are “bowling alone but tweeting together” meaning that despite modern time pressure and lack of in-person encounters, civic engagement is still considered to be strong, albeit online. (Antoci et al, 2014) This argument would mean that there has only been a change in the form of social capital to a virtual interaction, and should therefore not affect the decision whether to participate in democracy or not. In reality, turnout was declining towards the end of the last century, and turnout was less than 50% in the 1996 US Presidential Election; as well as the lowest on record for the UK General Election in 2001. However after 9/11, political participation has rose in both countries; a phenomena explained by suggesting it raised social capital by highlighting the importance of community values and government to Millennials, who were most likely to be disengaged (Putnam and Sander, 2010). Therefore it can be said that the decline in social capital by the end of the 1990s has been counterbalanced by the Internet revolution, meaning that people are more interconnected than ever. Whilst turnout rates are still relatively low in comparison to the 1960s, they are improving due to high Millennial involvement in politics, and therefore it can be said that crisis in electoral turnout is minimal.
Another way in which participation is changing within modern democracy is the rise of direct democracy. Referenda are increasingly being used as a method to ensure citizens can achieve maximum utility from the legislative process. It allows citizens to participate outside of elections, and is a key part to what Ronald Inglehardt has called “post-materialism.” It is seen to have been part of the cultural shift towards the left by millennials, and advocates an erosion of all kinds of authority, along with a decline of hierarchal institutions. It also supports a more participatory style of politics which focuses on pressure groups, basic democracy and other forms of direct action. (Dalton et al., 2001 p145-146). Supporters of direct democracy argue that referenda not only increase turnout and general participation in democracy; it also makes citizens more aware of politics and strengthens the link between them and government (Tolbert et al, 2003 p24-25). Indeed studies have shown that “states with frequent usage of citizen initiatives have higher voter turnout…than non-initiative states.” (Tolbert et al, 2001, p643). This in itself claims to negate the claim that democracy is in crisis as it means that people vote on laws directly, and increase their participation in the general democratic process; meaning that the largest possible proportion of the population are given a chance to influence political decisions, compatible with Lispet’s view on democracy.
However, it would be considered naive to believe that the upscaling of direct democracy is without its opponents. De Vreese (2006) believes that referenda diminishes party democracy, as even though the decision to be made is binary; parties can send ambiguous messages, or a split in the party can occur. This then leaves the public vulnerable to mass media, who are unlikely to present balanced coverage on the issue. This argument was clear to see during the “Brexit” vote, as a faction was created within the Conservative Party as several prominent ministers chose to back the “Leave” camp. This then creates a crisis within democracy as citizens cannot partisanly align themselves as they would normally. Moreover, it is argued that referenda within the US initiative process are used to manipulate democracy. During the 2004 Presidential Election, thirteen states had ballot initiatives on whether state constitutions should include a ban on gay marriage; an action which had a persuasive and mobilising effect on the incumbent Republican President Bush’s reelection. It may have persuaded people who would not have otherwise voted for him to do so based on their support for Republican-backed ban; or got Bush supporters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted at all due to their feelings on the issue (Campbell & Monson, 2008). This also highlights the crisis in democracy which can be caused by referenda, the elite can use initiatives as a function to gain more votes and hold power – manipulating the desires of the electorate as within Steven Lukes’ third face of power.
The initiative process can be used to curb minority rights; in the USA each state has their own process to determine which initiatives are put on the ballot, but a petition with enough signatures will most likely be included. This therefore makes it easy to erode the rights of a minority; who by definition will be defeated by the majority in a referendum, a theory supported by empirical evidence. Gamble (1997, p254), states that “between 1959 and 1993, 74 civil rights initiatives found their way onto state and local ballots across the nation… 78% resulted in outcomes that constituted a defeat of minority interests.” This show effectively how minority rights can be eroded on by an electorate – but not limited to the USA. The UK “Brexit” referendum was popularised as a stance on immigration by both politicians and the media (supporting De Vreese’s argument that the media shape referenda more than parties), and there was an increase in racist attacks against immigrants which followed that vote – highlighting the tumult and violence which democracy can be associated with; similar to the times of Madison. Therefore the post-materialist view which advocates direct democracy is causing a crisis in itself, as referenda are easily manipulated by the elite for their own gain; and that the potential for tyranny of the majority can destabilise the country.
In conclusion, this essay has examined the two main forms of direct citizen participation in democracy – voting in elections and through referenda in order to determine whether a crisis of participatory democracy exists. Whilst a crisis in electoral turnout certainly due to declining social capital certainly did exist in the late 1990s, a change in attitudes after 9/11 and the growing online community has revitalised civic engagement, meaning that this crisis is healing. In terms of referenda, whilst they reflect post-materialist values and their declining respect on authority; they can leave the people vulnerable to the mass media, are too easily manipulated by elite classes, and do not protect civil rights sufficiently to be considered effective. It can therefore be concluded that as the crisis of electoral turnout diminishes, the rise of referenda as a means of participation brings its own threat to democracy, which remains, for now, not in crisis.