Dahl\'s Theory of Democracy

Dahl's Theory Of Democracy

The two articles have defined Dahl as the role model in democracy research and the most eminent figure in the field of modern science. The articles reveal that Dahl has adequate knowledge in democratic issues specializing in empirical and normative aspects. He has pioneered in arguments regarding democracy concerns. Aspects of the democratic theory induced by Dahl are based on an analytical approach comprising of three elements. The first component includes values that constitute the objectives of a democratic government. The second component comprises of individual premises while the third is the required institutions for the implementation of democratic values. Besides knowing that democracy goes line in line with individuals, most leaders tend to ignore the individuals they are leading and their reactions. From the articles, the author argues that we cannot analyze how to produce democracy by ignoring to observe individuals making up democratic governments. We also have to observe motivations and interests inhibited by these individuals (Dahl 33).

When Dahl's Theory of Democracy is assessed based on analytical segments, it reveals that normative concepts cannot reconcile empirical circumstances. Alternatively, we should acknowledge that the demands made on the normative goals must be reduced. Dahl has adopted the previous position that advocate for the normative ideal. He claims that the democratic concepts of political autonomy and equality are indispensable for moral development and freedom of individuals. Evidently, Dahl has dismissed the idea that restrictions of realism must govern the description of democracy (Dahl 15). Additionally, he relies on the fact that people are utterly aware of democratic values and likely to act democratically. Based on this point-of-view, Dahl has dared to abandon the fate of democracy in the rescue of individuals. In case we do not have faith in democracy, do not depend on politicians or if we cannot vote, it will be impossible to produce democracy despite perfect institutions (Pateman 28).

As one of the modern eminent theorist, Professor Dahl advances that modern democracy stems from major roots: the Greece direct democracy, the Roman republicanism, and the city-states of Italy in the Middle age era and the Renaissance, the concept of political equality and representative government practice. The two articles have sought to define the basic institutions and ideas governing the first human democracy known as the democratic ancient Greek. In this context, Dahl's Theory of Democracy has a number of limitations. In the entire history of humankind, democracy has proven to be an extremely rare phenomenon. Most previous philosophers have raised serious concerns about the practice and theory of democracy. With no doubt, not until the 21st century did we have an agreement on the appeals of democratic institutions and concepts. The classical democratic Greek is the only general paucity regarding the history of human democracy (Pateman 39).

During the previous centuries, Greece city-states experienced a great political transformation. According to Dahl, this transformation has been viewed as a democratic transformation. It had a similar level of importance as ancient discoveries such as the discovery of the wheel. In this era, Greece was made of a collection of city-states because it was not a single nation. Of all the Greek city-states, Athens has been viewed as inhibiting the most sophisticated and innovative democracy. According to Aristotle, liberty is the underlying principle that guides classical democratic institutions. Unlike Dahl, Aristotle argues that two things can define liberty: being ruled and ruling; life that one chooses. Therefore, equality and liberty are undeniably linked. Indeed, the element of being ruled and the ruling is guided by the fundamental idealization of equality, which according to Aristotle, is numerical equality. This has opposed Dahl's basis of merit. This puts Dahl's Theory of Democracy in question (Dahl 19).

The democrats of Athens also gave in their gratitude at the go of the justice value, due process, and rule of law. It did not come to the realization of the Athenians that he would be wholly unlimited. However, he brought a sharp difference between the limit, which was not subject to the arbitrary will of another man understanding a rule of law. In this case, the right of being respected is self-imposed. If the law is developed properly within the boundaries of common life, it simply commands obedience legitimately (Dahl 26).

In later parallel liberal positions, the Athenian democrats were symbolized by a general devotion to the principle of civic virtue: commitment to the city-state of Republicans and the subordinating personal life to the affairs of the public and the common good. There existed no liberal difference distinguishing between the society and state, government and the people and between citizens and the specialized officials. In the society, the community members were entitled to obligations and rights. However, the rights were not attributes of personal individuals in any way. The obligations were never enacted by the state that was committed to maintaining a protective framework for personal ends. The rights were rather duties and rights of the public. Distinct from the modern between liberal private and a public sphere, the Athenians had the perception that life to be desired was life in a 'polis.' Every citizen as a beneficiary of politics found complete fulfillment through public debate and political participation. Active self-governance and direct governance process was the complete confirmation of Athenian citizenship (Dahl 20).

The ideals of Athenian politics including law and justice respect, liberty, and equality to every citizen have had a significant impact in the western political thought even though there are some key ideas. For example, the modern liberal idea of human beings being persons with rights that cannot be traced directly to Athens. One persistent problem that faces democracy without the framework of a constitution is that despots and demagogues to develop devastating effects can cheer the irrational passion of people. This problem was demonstrated sharply in the ancient Greek democracy (Dahl 41).

In the ancient Athens, there existed no constitutional or institutional limitations on the passion, emotion, vanity, and irrationality of people. The citizens' assembly was under the influence of a small group of families who commanded influence. On certain occasions, it depicted different problems that are connected with unlimited popular sentiments: the computation of the majority and computation of uncontrolled passion and irrationality. An example of tyranny of democracy, injustice, and the impulse was the history of the generals of Athens who were persecuted to death by the assembly in 406 BC (Pateman 27).