Why Should Political Decisions Be Made Demrtically - Essay Example

Why should роlitiсаl dесisiоns be made dеmосrаtiсаlly? Name Institution Course Tutor Date Why should роlitiсаl dесisiоns be made dеmосrаtiсаlly? Introduction Democracy means giving equal chances to the majority to participate in the process of making political decision. Democracy is a group decision-making method whereby participants are treated with equality where they offer collective opinions helping in making the final decision. In politics, it is vital for the decisions to be made democratically because making collective decisions binds the group members. In addition, in political decision making, there is the need of involving different types of groups for the decision to be democratic and there has to the interest of carrying some normative weight towards the made decision. In politics, it is very important to involve all people in the nation or section of the nation in making decisions that influence their lives or political issues. This paper seeks to explain why political decisions should be made democratically. The paper looks at arguments made by different authors of articles about making political decisions democratically. Democracy in political decisions In politics, there is a formal aspect of one-person one vote especially during the elections where there is a competition among the candidates. This is the same thing in voting towards a certain issue where some people support the issue and other are against the particular issue. According to the argument put forth by Bohman (1998, 408), the members of a group contributing in decision making should not be influenced or be forced to make contributions or vote towards an issue that they are not willing. There should be the issue of setting people free to make their choices; however, all people should be treated with equality despite their differences in understanding certain political aspects. For democracy to be enhanced in political decision-making there has to be equality, control, and freedom. Cohen (1989, 71) articulates that transparency and individual liberties should be controlled through competition while participation and the rule of law require to be controlled through the mutual constraints. Sanders (1997, 350) states that there has to be governmental capability for there to be efficient representation and public sphere. Deliberative democracy requires practices associated with the liberal democracy because the issue of majority being involved in decision-making requires there to be an inclusive participation where the public gets a chance in making judgment, reasoning, and discussion. According to Young (2001, 672), deliberate democracy in politics involves the participatory conception of the citizenship and involvement of institutions that allow public reasoning. In addition, Deliberation democracy has to be characterized by bargaining and voting (Fishkin, He, Luskin & Siu 2010, 439). In the disputes experienced in the contemporary world, democracy is essential where political decisions are made in a fairer manner compared to when a few people are involved because involving few people hinders equality practice in politics. As postulated by Weale (2007, 34), the ordinary citizens have to appoint or elect their representatives through consideration of their ability to stand for them and fight for their rights in the political matters. Ultimately, the citizen representatives cannot be chosen by only a few people, but requires majority voice for the decisions to bind the ordinary citizens. However, in some issues, the few chosen representatives are required to participate in making decisions on behalf of the citizens who voted for them to represent them, but there is also the need of majority in such decision making process. Christiano (2015, 131) emphasizes that once minority makes decisions, the majorities are likely to cause trouble, or problems because there is a belief that majority are ever right. Dahl (2000, 39) argues that liberation of the will of people is very essential in making the final decisions about an issue rather than only considering the opinions given by few people because reasoning of many people might be more accurate compared to reasoning of few people. Saward (2003, 168) identifies that in political disputes, once the majority are involved in coming up with a solution, the implementation of the solution becomes easier and efficient because democracy enhances satisfaction of the majority. In addition, the minority against the particular solution easily accepts the solution made by the majority because of the power of majority. Public justification and deliberation in the constitutional law makes representation efficient and enhances problem solving in unfavorable circumstances. Greater numbers of people are more likely to be right because collective decision-making demonstrates not only involvement of everybody, but respect to the deliberate view of the public. Saward (1993, 72) articulates that in some circumstances, decision-making becomes politically incompetent because of the minority complaining and bargaining about their substantive views being considered. It is widely realized that once power involves equal distribution from the citizens, the process of decision-making becomes more legitimate (Mansbridge, Bohman, Chambers, Estlund, Føllesdal, Fung & Manin 2010, 74). In addition, the decision makers should not be distorted by any kind of political power, but should be set free to consider their interests and understanding regarding a certain political issue because this enhances communication rationality. The representative and direct democracy involves the principles of deliberative democracy where the citizens are empowered to make efficient decisions because the public will leads to creation of binding laws (Saward 2003, 55). In the selection of the competing candidates in politics, people do not consider the aspect of equality, but that one of democracy where the opinion of the majority is considered (Bohman & Richardson 2009, 248). In matters that some people are disagreeing, a fair way of making decision should be identified and this involves considering equality where all the arguments are efficiently weighed and there is consideration of all positions efficient in those matter. For deliberation democracy to be effective in decision-making, the participants or the members of the group should be allowed to understand the relevant and accurate data. Saward (1994, 6) states that it is essential to consider the supporting evidence of the diverse opinions from the public and allow the decision makers to practice their rights. Harrison (1970 , 516) identifies one of the advantages of democracy in political decision making is that it allows the decision makers to consider the opinions, rights, and interests of the majority in the society, thus making more people to be accountable in the political power. It is evident that, in a nation, the majorities are powerless, but political decision-making should involve consideration of their opinions and interests for their needs to be met and for their rights to be respected. According to the argument put forth by Saward (1998, 16), in making the right decisions, different sources of political information and assessment of policies and laws should be considered to make democratic decision making a success. In political decision-making, the decision makers have to listen to others and their interests for there to be enhancement of morality, rationality, and autonomy of the participants. Rosenberg (2005, 218) highlights that the political institutions should avoid being discriminative or oppressive towards the minorities, but should consider the validity and truth of the contributions made by the majority. Justice is another important factor where the reasoning of the citizens should be supported to overcome conflicts, resolve the disagreements, and address public concerns. It should be encouraged that ordinary people to participate in politics, beyond simply voting because there are certain issues that do not only require the contribution of the representatives, but even the ordinary citizens. Bohman (1997, 11) articulates that all members of the society should be given a chance to give their opinions, which enhances remodeling the politics and making them deliberative. For mutual respect, citizens tend to address equality when dealing with others and acknowledge each other’s morally arguments and they justify their arguments through reasonable and rational methods. Weale (2007, 48) states that mutual respect to the ordinary citizens is very important because it allows the members to be treated with equality and freedom like members from a common polity because a shared solution has meaning to the specific dispute. Democracy is not centrally about voting, but about common deliberation (Mansbridge,Bohman,J, Chambers, Christiano, Fung, Parkinson & Warren 2012, 11). In addition, decisions taken by the majority can always be justified to the minority who loses out. As postulated by Rosenberg (2007, 341), deliberative democracy requires a clear understanding of the norms applied in the existence of equality and justice among the members of the society. Leib (2006, 927) identifies that in political disputes, people ought to conduct deliberation with each other and engage into reasonable argument for there to be an agreement enhancing their satisfactory. Inequality should be allowed to influence the outcomes and procedures that conform to the norms and for justice to be promoted in decision-making (Weale 2007, 78). It is perceptible that taking into account of others’ interests and listening to others enables effective practice of justice and should encourage other people to accept public diverse reasons (Simon 2008, 16). By showing the truth and reality of all opinions given out by the participants in decision-making, it becomes possible to justify the importance of such considerations to the minority despite them losing. Social justice and political responsibility helps in promotion of the positive actions of the participants in the decision-making since the collective decisions affect all the people in the group (Benhabib 1996, 72). The representative democracy helps in maintenance of the transfer of power in an orderly manner because of enhancement of political stability, social order, and peace. It also enhances protection of the minorities because of consideration of their interests despite the unequal distribution of the expertise and diversity of the political views. Phillips (1991, 13) argues that the members of a polity have equal importance and their interest matters equally and giving all members of the society a say enables them to determine their personal lives. When moral reasons are considered, people manage to justify the practice of coercive power and fairness during the practice of respecting equality. According to the argument put forth by Held (2006, 25), power and wealth inequalities hinder genuine chances for the citizens to participate in the politics and in political elections. In the deliberative democracy, equal and free citizens are allowed to deliberate on matters that equally affect them, thus the application of reasoned agreement for changing of the majority views. Deliberative democracy is for mutual advantage to the public or the ordinary people because it improves equality and fair representation of every member of the public. As emphasized by Stoker (2006, 36), fairness in political decision-making does not only involve the reality of the opinions of the participants, but it also involves the involvement of all the group members equally and setting them free to mirror out their rationality and democratic discussions. Deliberative democracy enhances respect to the democratic positions of the minority because of reasonableness of the concerns raised by the ones contributing in the decision-making. According to Przeworski, Stokes and Manin (1999, 38), the activist organisations resist and protest the injustices or harms subjected to the citizens by ensuring efficient exchange of political information and persuades the minorities to change personal views to prevent disagreements in decision making. It is very essential to follow a reliable and fair procedure when practicing deliberative democracy for the decision to be of high quality (Mansbridge et al. 2010, 77). Unless people are allowed to contribute in political issues, they cannot be satisfied with the decisions made by the decision makers especially on matters concerning their lives. As identified by Weale (2007, 78), equal bargaining in the public affairs enhance realization of fairness of the political ideas because public deliberation allows there to be a formal conception of the deliberative democracy. Furthermore, the reasoning of the equal citizens and conducting the activities that enable deliberation to be effective leads to legitimacy. Doing things or making decisions that are against the interests of the majority, calls for the public attention because of assumptions made that the public will just comply with the particular decisions; however, this might lead to public conflict towards the political organisations. Rosenberg (2008, 7) argues that in the political process, the behaviour of the majority involves criticism of the public because protesting private deliberation enhances conduct of deliberative democracy. Ultimately, the formal rules of equal participation support public deliberation and the process brings the issue of fairness and transparency among the participants. According to Birch (2007, 19), the legitimacy of the deliberative process makes the political actors to be sensitive about justice and are much concerned about the welfare justice where the welfare programs are supported. Conclusion Political decisions should be made democratically. This is because democratic decision-making involves consideration of equality and freedom in participating in decision-making. In addition, democratic decision-making allows all the people in the group to have a say towards the particular issue, thus enhancing consideration of fairness and justice in implementation of the particular solution. Deliberative democracy is very essential because it allows the participants to be accountable for their contributions in the process of decision-making. Moreover, deliberative democracy helps in the bargaining of welfare and equality of all members of the group and this helps in offering justification to the minorities regardless them having lost out. Considering the views of the members of the society in decision-making helps in improving legitimacy and enhances their satisfaction. A number of political analysts have argued that deliberative democracy is efficient and essential in the political decision making because the decision makers consider the interests and opinions of the majority in the society, which is binding to them. In general, democracy in political decision-making is better compared to the minority rule. References Benhabib, S 1996, Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. I Seyla Benhabib, red: Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, s 67–94. Birch, A H 2007, Concepts and theories of modern democracy. London: Routledge. Bohman, J & Richardson, H S 2009, Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and “Reasons that All Can Accept”*. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 253-274. Bohman, J 1997, Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, United States: MIT press. Bohman, J 1998, Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of political philosophy, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 400-425 Christiano T 2015. Disagreement and the justification of democracy’ in S. Wall, The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism. Cambridge University Press. P. 126-150 Cohen, J 1989, Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. 1997, p. 67-92. Dahl, R A 1991, Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahl, R A 2000, On democracy. New Have.\n: Yale University Press. Fishkin, J S, He, B, Luskin, R C & Siu, A 2010, Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: deliberative polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 02, p. 435-448. Harrison, R 1970, No paradox in democracy. Political Studies, Vol. 18. No. 4, p. 514-517. Held, D 2006, Models of democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Leib, E J 2006, Can direct democracy be made deliberative. Buff. L. Rev., Vol. 54, p. 927. Mansbridge, J, Bohman, J, Chambers, S, Christiano, T, Fung, A, Parkinson, J & Warren, M E 2012, A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. Deliberative systems, p. 1-26. Mansbridge, J, Bohman, J, Chambers, S, Estlund, D, Føllesdal, A, Fung, A & Manin, B 2010, The Place of Self‐Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy*. Journal of political philosophy, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 64-100. Phillips, A 1991, Engendering democracy. University Park: Penn State Press. Przeworski, A, Stokes, S C & Manin, B 1999, Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, S 2005, The empirical study of deliberative democracy: setting a research agenda. Acta Politica, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 212-224. Rosenberg, S W 2007, Rethinking democratic deliberation: The limits and potential of citizen participation. Polity, Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 335-360. Rosenberg, S W 2008, Can the people govern? Deliberation, participation and democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Sanders L M 1997, Against Deliberation. Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 347-376 Saward, M 1993, Green democracy. The politics of nature: Explorations in green political theory, p. 63-80. Saward, M 1994. Democratic theory and indices of democratization. Sage Modern Politics Series, Vol. 36, p. 6-6. Saward, M 1998, The terms of democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Saward, M 2003, Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge. Saward, M 2003, Enacting democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 161-179. Simon, R L 2008, The Blackwell guide to social and political philosophy (Vol. 20). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stoker, G 2006, Why politics matters. Making democracy work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Weale A 2007, Democracy. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 1-292 Young I M 2001, Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 670-690 Read More