Introduction
Richard Swift has posed an argument that American politics is suffering from “Weak Democracy.” He further argues that in order for the US to have a “Strong Democracy” then the American people must “Democratize the Economy” and “Democratize Democracy.” There are many supporting evidences that Swift provided to justify such arguments. Nevertheless, this essay while agreeing with Swift that the US is indeed suffering from “weak democracy,” refutes his arguments on how to bring about a “strong democracy.” This essay stands on the argument that the United States of America, its people and its politics are, in fact, examples of “weak democracies.” That is, Swifts argument is partially persuasive enough to suggest that the US has a weak democracy. This essay will further argue that the only way to have a “strong democracy” is through a revolution – a revolution by the people against its current rulers.
Discussion
Firstly, I would like to elaborate on Swift’s definition of strong and weak democracy. Accordingly, in his book entitled, The Non-nonsense Guide to Democracy, he suggests the following descriptions of a weak and strong democracy, “Many still have the lingering sense that democracy means 'rule by the people' - in other words, people participate in the decisions that affect them most closely” (24). Swift then commented that if such is the definition of democracy, then the United states of America is not even close to it, at present. From this passage, a strong democracy is one where in the people rule, while a weak democracy is where the people have minimal powers to rule. It is apparent that Swift is implying that the people should rule over the affairs of politics. Accordingly, he points out, “Democratic politics is becoming more a means for the relatively privileged to defend what they have, rather than a vehicle for a more equal vision of society” (21). The people should also rule over their own liberties, “The new preoccupation is with security and sacrificing our liberties to safeguard our persons and property (8). Swift also made it clear from his statements that the efforts of the United States government to limit entrance of foreigners from its borders results to the reduction of the American people’s liberty to go out of the country. Hence the irony – the efforts to make Americans more free results to the weakening of their democracy.
The second task that I want to delve into is whether such claims by Swift are all real. Meaning, they happen as we speak. Fortunately for Swift, his claims are with bases. In a study conducted by Kurt Weyland he successfully showed that the Neoliberalism was instrumental in prolonging democracy in the United States, but the quality of this prolonged democracy is low. Note that Weyland’s “Low Quality of Democracy” is synonymous to Swift’s “Weak Democracy.” Weyland explained in his study that, especially for first world countries like the US, economic system and the level of democracy go together – the latter being dictated by the former (135). Weyland further explained that as the economy of a country becomes weaker, so does democracy - this is because the industries, in order to survive will depend greatly upon government intervention creating an imbalance in power between the private sectors and the government – the latter possessing the greater power.
Now, is the economic status of the United States improving, stagnant, or getting weaker through time? This is the next question that needs to be asked if we will build upon the explanation of Weyland about the variation in the level of democracy. An idea of the economic growth of the US can be seen from its GDP growth trend. From the separate works of Richard Posner and Jennifer Gardner, and the Bureau of Statistics, it was shown that there was a decline in GDP from 1900s onwards. The peak is somewhere from 1983 to 1985. If we take Weyland’s reasoning that economic system dictates the level of democracy then Swifts arguments are strongly justified – US is and must, through the concept of neoliberalism, should experience a decrease in its level of democracy at present.
Now, Swift proposes that in order to turn the weak democracy to a strong democracy, the people – the middle class and the poor Americans – must take control of the economy. In other words, we will have an economy that runs from below (the middle class and the poor people) and not from the top (the government and the wealthy 1%). Swift then proposes a method of accomplishing this, to which I could never agree, as it is insufficient. Accordingly, Swift suggests that the people begin to change at the individual level. He notes, “This most basic experience of life, earning your livelihood, involves the surrender of both your time and your will to the direction of others. This is a major deficit in the building of democratic life. The experience of a managerial autocracy at work robs people of a sense of their own democratic agency. It contributes to a passive 'follow orders' mentality that sucks away the lifeblood of active citizenship” (Swift 57). This idea of beginning a change from the individual level is not new. In fact, it is as old as the human civilization itself – Hindus, Christians, and Muslims preach it; hence, there is nothing new to what Swift was proposing. It is up to this point that Swift makes a litany of words about how the economy and the government should be run by the people. He never gets to discuss, what the people must to in order to regain control of the government and the economy.
In my opinion, Swift should have prescribed revolution against the government and the “1%” – another civil war. But there is no hope for Swift mentioning this part as he, on previous pages – before he suggested his solution – had already laid waste to the idea of a revolution, by making the idea appear to be “Leftist” in nature, when, in fact, almost all democracies in the world did not come at a low price – almost always, a revolution must ensue. Accordingly, he notes, “There was no need to work out the details of how this self-rule would operate and socialists took little interest in any theory of popular sovereignty that would act as a guarantee for a broader democracy. Indeed any such attempts were denounced as utopian. In hindsight these flaws proved fatal. With the first Soviet leader Lenin's autocratic adaptation of Marxism into a one-party rule 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ideas of workers' self-government receded into the far distant future” (47). Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the revolution to increase the level of democracy or to make it strong is an idea that is well supported by the Malthusian Theory. It is Swift idea of controlling or running the economy from the bottom that is socialist or leftist in origin and not revolution. The US has gone two revolutions already, the revolution against the British and the American Civil War.
The Malthusian Theory provides an interesting insight as to the limiting factors of democracy and how it can be revived. Malthus explained that a population can only increase up to a certain threshold. Beyond this threshold adverse events may take place, “That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence.” He further explained that “the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice,” (Malthus 61). What this statement means is that population growth will eventually bring down the country’s economy, until equal rights and liberties must be sacrificed. If this is not done then chaos such as war and famines will sweep the population into a significantly smaller count. Now, I would like to note that in the US, a scarcity in subsistence is not a problem, neither overpopulation – the US certainly has a problem with its population.
In conclusion, democracy is more than just a static state but a dynamic one. While Swift is highly efficient in proving that the United States of America is experiencing a weak democracy, and successfully identifying the different manifestations of this weak democracy, he was quite inefficient in suggesting sound solutions to the problem. From the arguments, analyses, and facts presented in this essay, the real reason for the weakening of democracy was identified. The real reason is the problem of the Americans with overpopulation brought about by their excessive consumption. While, Swift’s suggestion to begin at the individual level to turn things around – to have a strong democracy – is a significant step, it can never be the only step. The people must revolt against the government, take hold of it, and rule it. This concept is not a socialist or Marxist concept as it is well documented that democracies are usually founded upon wars and revolutions. The book in its entirety presents interesting points about the current democracy in the US and the reasons behind such, but it present weak arguments or prescriptions on how to make weak democracy strong.
Works Cited:
Eichengreen, Barry and Leblang, David. Democracy and Globalization. NBER Working Paper Series. 2006. Print.
Gardner, Jennifer M. The 1990–1991 Recession: How Bad was the Labor Market? Monthly Labor Review, 117.6 (1994): 3–11. Print.
Malthus T.R. An Essay on the Principle of Population, in Oxford World's Classics reprint. 1978. P. 6. Print.
Posner, Richard A. Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Recession. 2009. Print.
Swift, Richard. The No-nonsense Guide to Democracy. London: The Independent. 1998. Print.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Summary of Fuel Economy Performance. 2011. Print.
Weyland, Kurt. Neoliberalism in Latin America: a Mixed Record. Latin American Politics and Society, 26.1 (2004): 135 – 141.
