“How Democratic is the American Constitution?” is one of Robert A. Dahl’s latest works. In his nook, Dahl delves deeper into the complexities of the process and the ideals of the framing of American democracy. Although most Americans view the American Constitution as a beacon of democracy that came about in the most methodical manner, however, Dahl reveals to his readers that this is not the case. Dahl’s book begins by posing the abiding question that is the book’s title as well, and Dahl also goes on to ask Americans why they should uphold the American Constitution. He answers this question by advising his American readers to base the legitimacy of this apparently great document on nothing more than its “utility as an instrument of democratic government-nothing more, nothing less” (39). Dahl is well-aware that the Constitution is an American icon and convincing Americans to think this way is a meticulous task.
Most Americans would never doubt or question the superiority of the American Constitution for fear of committing some sort of treason. Most Americans believe that the Constitution does not define America on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion, which would apparently mean that even immigrants, at least legal ones, are Americans too. However, in this book, Dahl decides to explore and disclose whether such ideals, the ideals that Americans believe in, are truly embodied in the Constitution By the time Dahl reaches his conclusion, readers may feel a bit distressed and sobered. His conclusion is that the American Constitution does not meet any standards of what a democratic state should be and later developments from other global democracies have actually surpassed it. The Electoral College, the process of electing Senators, and the role of the courts are some of the examples he uses to make this point.
One of Dahl ideas that mind offend American readers the most is that he is claiming that other states might be more democratic than American, however, as they continue reading the book till the very end they will realize that this is not something shocking. The fact that democracy is not a stationary but a dynamic system, which is prone to change and has changed over the years, is one of the first things that Dahl shows his readers. It would be foolish to think that political philosophy has not advanced over the years too. In fact, after the Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, even the views of the Framers of the Constitution began to change. For instance, Dahl highlights that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had actually not yet concluded his constitutional notions, especially regarding majority rule and suffrage. Even the other framers of the Constitution were continuously forced to make compromises in order to complete the Constitution.
A good example of the above is the notion of an electoral college. During the majority of the Constitutional Convention, the framers believed that it would be best if the national legislature would select the American president. Early in the Convention, the framers decided upon this method by unanimous vote. After comprehensively debating for three years, the framers were avidly prepared to conclude their work. However, a new committee was established at the last minute to address the issue of the presidential election. The book contains a direct quote from the Constitution, which highlights the current process of electing the president of the United States, and marks the birth of the Electoral College. Dahl considerably emphasizes on this issue, also focusing on the developments over the years as a result of which the voting process has evolved and has become democratized. Dahl proceeds to suggest that the problems innate in the current election system can be corrected with some constitutional amendments.
Through the major points that Dahl illustrates in this book, he is basically establishing a single argument. He is arguing that the Framers of the Constitution may have been great and wise, but everything they knew, everything they were mistaken to believe they knew, and everything they were yet to know limited their vision. Moreover, the political necessities of a certain moment, as a result of which they unwillingly swallowed provisions they strongly opposed, which further thwarted them. Later, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the few of the new democratic mechanisms and norms that emerged after the outburst of democratic theory were incorporated into the Constitution. Dahl clarifies that despite American power, other democracies have not really looked up to the American system as a model. It would be irrational to believe that other democratic alternatives do not do as good a job as the American system, and Dahl gives his readers several reasons to believe that it may actually be doing a worse one.
There are many undemocratic features of the Constitution, such as the acceptance of slavery, and cleaning the Constitution of these indecencies took the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Although this point is not highlighted in the book, but it is a fact that the biggest representation of the Constitution’s most disastrous failure was none other than the Civil War. The political institutions created by the Constitution failed to solve the greatest problem ever faced by America. The Reconstruction amendments made to the Constitution were never made in the name of the founding fathers and were not structural but merely substantive. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, and every American regardless of color or race was granted the right to vote by the Fifteenth amendment, which is supposed to include immigrants too. However, nothing was done to change the political institutions that denied millions of Americans their “free” rights to equal protection.
The way other global democracies have been compared to the American democratic system is one of the interesting aspects of this book. The back of the book showcases various charts and tables. These charts and tables present a comparison of the attributes and performance of the American constitutional system to other global democratic systems. Dahl even gives his readers to get an idea of what democracy looks in other countries by adding thumbnail pictures. As for the American constitutional system, it is referred to as “The American Hybrid” in the book. According to Dahl, this “hybrid” is flawed in numerous important ways, and he does not believe that these flaws can be changed successfully. Examples of such as flaws that will be difficult to change have been cited in the book. However, when it comes to the Electoral College, Dahl seems more optimistic and believes that the proportional allocation of electoral votes to the popular votes could result in a major change.
Ultimately, Dahl gives his readers two really nice suggestions. First, he suggests that this Constitution that is held by such high esteem by a majority of Americans needs to be demythologized. Although the Constitution is not easily questioned, Dahl suggests that Americans need to. He complains that the American public does not debate over the Constitution’s viability, even though they should. He is aware that Americans are loyal to the Constitution, but he advices to getting petrified from discussing and trying to fix its deficiencies. Second, he suggests his readers that the issue of political resources needs to be addressed. The democratic system of America has evolved to such an extent that the most significant political power can be exercised by those who have the most resources. However, until and unless Americans address this political inequality, addressing the problems discussed in the book and the suggestions made for America and its Constitution will be difficult.
American democracy is definitely not perfect, and after reading Dahl’s “How Democratic is the American Constitution?” this point is definitely arguable. Dahl proves this with his list of the democratic institutions from 22 countries that have lasted without the adoption of the American constitutional system and still continue to flourish. Every American should be reading. Every American citizen should read Dahl’s book at least once. Now is a time when the clues that Americans need can be found in history and thus, Dahl is somewhat presenting a history lesson. The Constitution is about twenty-seven pages long, with the addition of amendments. It was a remarkable accomplishment for the framers who managed to frame such complex and profound ideals. However, unless Americans build up the courage to look at their democratic principles with criticism and skepticism, there is no use in holding on to them so dearly so most Americans do today.
References
Dahl, R. (2003). How democratic is the american constitution?. (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
