Lunds Universitet STV561 Statsvetenskapliga institutionen 19950418 Statsvetenskapens idéarv och utveckling Lennart Lundquist Malte Lewan PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY, CAROLE PATEMAN In Macpherson's reading tips for literature on democracy in 'The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy' (1976), he says that "realistic works on participatory democracy are scarce". Among the few "useful treatments", Pateman's book is found, listed first and as the only whole book. In 1976, it probably was the book to read on the subject. I will here give an 1995 summary and evaluation of the work. 1. "Classical" versus Contemporary Theories of Democracy In the beginning of her book, Pateman describes the earlier theories of democracy and starts with Joseph Schumpeter and his "extra-ordinarily influential book" 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy' (1943). Schumpeter depicts democracy as a political method, an institutional arrangement for arriving at decisions. He uses the "classical doctrine" of democracy as a starting point for critisism and attacks its ideas of a theory of means and ends. He arrives at the realistic definition: "That institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote". It's a competiton for leadership. Schumpeter even helds the opinion that citizens trying to influence representatives with personal opinions is against the spirit of the democratic method. That is because it is an attempt by citizens to control their representatives and contrasts with the concept of leadership. Participation is discouraged except for the occasion of elections. Pateman says that his characterisation of the democratic method is "almost universally accepted" in the (at least then) recent writing on democratic theory. Pateman singles out four more recent theorists that follow Schumpeter in his footsteps. These are Berelson, Dahl, Sartori and Eckstein. She describes their theories one by one. They all emphasize stability a bit more than Schumpeter. Berelson says that his democracy "enables the contradictions to be solved while the stability of the system is maintained". The system is both stable and flexible. Apathy and limitations of participation is a _good_ thing. One argument he uses leads Pateman to the conclusion that he at any point will advocate just as much particpation as it then is. The current situation will therefore always be the best situation. Dahl is close to Schumpeter as well. He states that there is no use advocating much participation since most people are uninterested in politics. In any social organisation, there will be a small group of people who takes up the decision making. Especially the lower social- economic groups will be disadvantaged and seldom participate. While Dahl and Berelson are portrayed as somewhat moderate, especially Sartori, but also Eckstein are presenting extreme revisional versions of earlier democracy. Sartori stresses stability very much. The democratic ideal must be minimized and participation leads directly to totalitarianism. This danger is recurrent in Sartori's writings. Eckstein also concentrates around stability. He thinks that democratic government must be congruent to other authority patterns in society. (This, we will see, interests Pateman especially.) For example, schools and families are not democratic and never can be. Government must contain a "healthy element of authoritarianism". Only then can effective decision making take place. Men have a need for firm leaders and leadership and without it, stability is threatened. Pateman groups the above theories together as "the contemporary theory of democracy". Dahl states that he presents a value-free descriptive theory but this is questioned by Pateman through Taylor. She says that contemporary theory implies that the system that is outlined implies that it is one we should value and constitutes a standard to which political are measured. It becomes a way to sell the idea of an ideal. It is also a way to push the idea that we already have the ideal democratic polity. One major point of critique, Pateman puts forward, she says that she is the first to note. Neither the contemporary theorists nor the critics have really understood that there never existed something such as the "classical" theory of democracy. Schumpeter and the rest are very vague when it comes to point out exactly who and which theories they criticise. The views Schumpeter ascribes the "classical" theorists are simply not correct. One example is that the "classical" democrats would ignore the importance of leadership. Pateman chooses four possible candidates for the "classical" democratic theory: Rousseau, Bentham, James Mill and J S Mill and she examines them. Bentham and James Mill actually agree with Schumpeter on the focus around institutional arrangements and participation has only a protective role, the protection of the citizen aginst the government. There is "nothing specifically democratic" about it. And there is a difference between different "classical" theorists. To J S Mill and Rousseau, participation played a much more central role and Pateman calls them the first theorists of "participatory democracy". Rousseau's participatory system is participation in making of decisions and a central function is its educative effects. It is designed to develop responsible social and political action. Once it is established, it becomes self-sustaining. The more the individual citizen participates, the better able he is to do so. This development of the human nature is one reason to have the participatory system. Another one is that it is claimed to give the individual control over the course of his life. Further, it enables collective decisions to be more easily accepted by the individual and finally, it has an integrative function and the creation of a sense of belonging to the community. I feel that essentially, this is about as far as Pateman comes in arguments for participatory democracy. These arguments are developed in much of the rest of the book. J S Mill stressed two aspects of good government: 1) how far it promotes good management of societal affairs and 2) influence on the human mind, for example how political institutions promote the psychological advancement of the community. It is only in the popular participatory institutions that Mill sees this psychological development. He adds that democracy confined to central government is not much worth. The individual needs to be prepared at the local level, then he "learns democracy". In Mill's practical proposals for the good polity though, he doesn't have confidence enough to follow these thoughts to their ends and consequently describes representative democracy. This "gives rise to the ambiguity in his theory of participation". Mill was also interested in possible participation in the work place and saw it as another area where the individual could gain experience in collective affairs, just as he could in local government. This becomes extremely important for Pateman for the whole book she is writing. It is the basis of the book and she says that it's the basis for participatory democracy. It is also the parting point for Pateman into a surprising (and disappointing) discussion path into the area of socialism. There are interesting points still made. 2. Participation in the Work Place Pateman brings in the early writings of G D H Cole. He was greatly influenced by Rousseau (but also by Marx). In Cole's society, there are a number of associations with different functions. It's not sufficient for an individual to be represented by just one. He has to _participate_ in _all_ those associations with which he is concerned and therefore best understands. All social actions needs the participation of those affected. For Cole, as for Mill, as for Rousseau, the educational function of participation is crucial. Economic inequalities are fatal to democracy. Participation in the work-place is especiallly stressed. Cole presents something called "Guild Socialism" as his notion of what a participatory society may look like. It's a very radical view. Pateman repeats Rousseau's arguments for participation that it is educative and develops qualities for further participation as well as subsidiary advantages that it has an integrative effect and that it helps acceptance of collective decisions. Participation is most important in the industry because most people spend so much of their lifetime at work and the climate for education in collective affairs is especially promising. She answers one objection one might have that leisure time could be counted equally important as working time. She says that most hobbies do not involve the production of anything. Rather, it is consuming. More importantly, the social context is lacking in the leisure activities. The worker who has a monotonous job may even tend "to disorganise the rest of his life", Friedman helps out. Also, the leisure time is not much continous time, anyway. "Politics" is not confined to the usual national or local level, it includes every activity, and the most important is the work place. "The theory of participatory democracy stands and falls on two hypotheses: the educative funtion of participation, and the crucial role of the industry". By now, I'd think that most modern readers feel they have to swallow a number of socialistic views and perspectives to be able to go on. It might get harder and harder in the book, to interpret Pateman's extended arguments as relevant for today's discussions. The assumptions she has drawn and the questions she asks are still interesting. Pateman brings forward the fact that there are some people who tend to participate in politics, and others who do not. There is often a self- confidence present in the ones who do. She thinks it's very important to find the reasons to this division and thinks that this research has been neglected by contemporary theorists. The statement that there simply _are_ some who are interested and others who are not, doesn't satisfy her. She turns to Almond and Verba's idea that of "crucial significance" are opportunities to "participate in decisions at one's place of work". Lack of these opportunities at work, like the lower social groups many times are facing, brings a lack of self-confidence and lack of will to partipate. Pateman explains the "evidence" she has found of this. It is late in the book, when Pateman starts to discuss what "participation" means. Though she doesn't spell it out, it's not until now that a more exact definition is needed. The everyday use of the word is sufficient and maybe easier to work with. At this point however, she quotes French, Israel and Aas definition as a beginning point for her own one. She wants a limited definition that prohibits the ordinary speech one which might only demand a minimal amount of interaction. It's important to discriminate between different forms of "participation". Many managers use the term in situations when it's a technique of persuading the workers to accept decisions _already_ taken by the management. He can for example tell them that he answers all their questions and he wants them to discuss the issue. To Pateman (and Verba), this is just to create a _feeling_ of participation and is a certein approach or style by the leader. It's a technique of persuation rather than one of decision, Verba says. Pateman calls this "pseudo participation". She then goes on to explain something called "partial participation" which is in some ways similar to pseudo participation but in this case, actual influence _does_ occur. The definition is: "partial participation is a process in which two or more parties influence each other in the maiking of decisions but the final power to decide rests with the one party only". To, in practise, see the difference can be impossible but "the theoretical distinction is clear". "Full participation" finally is defined as "a process where each individual member of a decision-making body has equal power to determine the outcome of decisions". Now, "democracy" is not a general climate that exists in the enterprise, a friendly atmosphere. It is full - not partial - participation at all levels - not just one - and in the whole structure. At this time, the reader realises that she has altogether left the public political life and only deals with industry democracy. It has been an almost invisible transition. Of course, the idea is that her reasonings should be seen on the public levels as well, but her emphasis on this is not overwhelming. She seems rather content with industry democracy. Pateman desribes three English companies that she has found are particiaptory on different levels (all more than the ordinary company though). She desribes how they're working, which instiutions of participation they have. One problem present in many of them are that the ordinary workers are not participating as much as she would have hoped. The workers are also often very unknowledgeable of the company democracy. An explanation she searches out, is that many times the employees are given opportunitites of participating only on too high levels of the decision making. The lower level, which is close to the workers, can be crucial for training and creating interest of the higher levels. But Pateman dosen't find the perfect company that would enable her to test that hypothesis. Eckstein makes the mistake of calling democracy in economic organisations "impossible" (without any evidence whatsoever) and Pateman seems to put in a chapter about the Yugoslavian system, just to prove that he's dead wrong. She complains that it is "another aspect of the normative nature of the contemporary theory of democracy". She also says that "No discussion of industrial particiapation and democracy can afford to ignore the Yugoslav system.". Apparently, at the time of the writing of her book, the Yugoslav economy was healthy. Her point is that the Yugoslavian system which provides the workers with much participation, proves that it is not "impossible" with workplace democracy without sacrificing economic performance - to a high degree at least (she is cautious here). The Yugoslav system of workers' self-management is naturally partly disrupted at the top with the leading role of the communist party, but Pateman examines this and finds evidence that the company's autonomy still is considerable. There is an appalling lack of knowledge on the part of the employees about the participatory institutions. This can be explained by lack of information and again, participatory rights on only too high levels. The most important conclusion is that participatory democracy is not "impossible". 3. Summary Pateman thinks that although most of contemporary democracy theorists think that a certain type of democratic attitude and qualitiy is required by the citizen in a democracy, it ignores how it should be achieved. It has also stopped at the non-changeble notion of great apathy among the citzens. _Why_ are the political facts what they are, Pateman wants to know. _That_, is central to democratic theory. The workings of the democratic institutions are connected to the democratic institutions themselves. They can't be isolated and pretended they were independent. They can't be detached to what goes on in the rest of society either. The scope of the term "political" must be extended to spheres outside national government. In the same way as lower level of decision making in an enterprise is important for the possibilities for participation on the higher levels, industry is important for the participation on the national level. Participation in low levels leads to confidence and interest of participation in higher ones. Pateman writes that "Industry occupies a vitally important place in the theory of participatory democracy.". That's why it got this prominent role in her book. There are other spheres of society that needs democratising: the family, the universities and the local government are examples she gives. It's not enough with democracy on the high levels, with referenda on the national levels for example. All of society must be participatory. That participation will be educational and spill over into all spheres of society. 4. Conclusion One gets the feeling that Pateman starts out just right in this book. She finds many flaws in the contemporary democracy. She asks questions and actually is ridiculing the old theorists by quoting sentences that are in very deep contrast with the ordinary man's idea of the democratic system he lives in. She tries to sort out a mess about the "classical" theorists of democracy and finds surprising patterns and a line of common ideas that extends through history and that she definitly can agree with and work further on. There is some point though, where one has the feeling she has chosen a very particular track of thinking and one that has close connections to socialism. The question marks are fast appearing. Isn't there a _big_ difference between public decision making and the one in enterprises (which ultimately is somebody's property). Doesn't the mixing in theories of the different spheres, create a number of problems (unless you have set your goal on nationalizing all of a country's industries) based on different ownerships. While one would think that Pateman would pick out Switzerland with its unique direct democracy as the country to study, she choses the communist state Yugoslavia. Today, her idea that low level participation leads to mental development seems _seriously_ damaged by the current warlord anarchy in ex-Yugoslavia. It is hard to imagine the extreme situation not being a result of uneducated men long time surpressed by the dictatorship. An incredible lack of political maturity looks today be present and the scenario obviously wasn't helped by any educational effects of worker's self-management in the communist days. To me, it is clear that Pateman overestimates the importance of enterprise democracy at the expense of an open national participatory debate (and maybe also decision making). Pateman is burrying herself too much on the enterprise level. Still, altogether, she brings many points into day in her book and it can be (and I'm sure is) a starting point for many other theories and thoughts. --- References: - Macpherson, C B, 1976; "The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy"; Oxford University Press, Oxford - Pateman, Carole, 1970; "Participation and Democratic Theory"; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge