University Microfilms International
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University M icrofilm s International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR, Ml 4B106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1 R 4EJ, ENGLAND 833175'+ JELEN, TFO GFhARU HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: ANALYSIS fJF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY. THE OHIO S T A T c UN IVi-RSITY* PH.D., 19 79 C3PR. 1*79 JELE v., T : D GERARD Un International 300 n. z e e b r o a d, a n n a r b o r, mi 48106 Q.) Copyright by Ted Gerard Jelen 1979 HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: AN ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY DISSERTATION ' Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ted Gerard Jelen, B.A., M.A. ★ ★ * * * The Ohio State University 1979 Reading Committee: Approved By John Champlin Goldie Shabad James Noble :sor Department of Political Science ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people have provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of this project. Without such assistance, this dissertation might, never have been completed. Of course, primary credit must go to the three task masters: John Champlin, Goldie Shabad, and James Noble. My gratitude for their advice, patience, and encouragement is very difficult to convey. I thank them. In addition, a number of others contributed valuable comments and suggestions. In particular, I thank Mark Priewe, Lance Smith, Joanne Farley, Arthur Blaser, Michael O'Loughlin, Debrah Bokowski, and Susan Butler for valuable discussions and encouragement. Karen Sanders and Rebecca Howe performed the distaste ful and time-consuming task of transforming a very messy manuscript into a presentable dissertation. Finally, I must say that the Department of Political Science at Ohio State has been an helpful setting for the conception and execution of this project. Early in my graduate studies, I applied for, and received, a sort of dual citizenship in the fields of political behavior and political theory. This dissertation constitutes an effort to integrate the two concerns. Of course, despite the help of many others, I assume sole responsibility for any errors which this project may contain. VITA April 30, 1952.... Born, Evergreen Park, Illinois 1974 B.A. Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois 1974 - 1978 Research Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1977 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1978 - 1979 Adjunct Instructor, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Mass Political Behavior Participation and Voting Behavior. Professor Herbert Asher Public Opinion. Professor Kristie Andersen Comparative Voting Behavior and Comparative Political Parties. Professor Bradley Richardson. Minor Field: Political Theory Democratic Theory. Professor John Champlin Explanation. Professor James Noble American Political Thought. Professor Lawrence J. R. Herson iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................... ii VITA.................................................. iv Chapter I. DEMOCRACY AND AUTHENTICITY ................... 1 II. REVISIONIST AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY. 21 III. AUTHENTICITY AND PARTICIPATION: TWO MODELS. 60 IV. POLITICS AND STABILITY...................... 151 V. FREEDOM AND EQUALITY........................ 179 VI. DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHENTICITY: THE PARTICIPATION HYPOTHESIS RECONSIDERED.......204 VII. AN INVENTORY OF TESTABLE PROPOSITIONS....... 23 8 VIII. CONCLUSION...................................275 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................285 v CHAPTER I DEMOCRACY AND AUTHENTICITY ...there is no democratic theory - there are only democratic theories.^ Robert Dahl A Preface to Democratic Theory ...people have been practicing democracy successfully for some time, and do not really have to be told what true democ racy is. 2 Giovanni Sartori Democratic Theory For a number of years, there has been a persistent de bate in political science concerning the proper scope and function of political participation in democratic societies. Despite a great deal of work on this problem, there exists little agreement concerning the proper role of "ordinary citizens" in democratic politics. This is a fundamental problem for democratic theory, and the fact that it seems resistant to resolution is a matter for some concern. Part of the difficulty, in my view, is due to the fact that it is difficult to think clearly about democracy generally. Arriving at a precise formulation of the "essence" of "democracy" often appears to be so formidable 1 a task that many political scientists understandably shrink from it. Like a Chesire Cat, the object almost disappears from sight as we try to comprehend it. Perhaps ironically, this confusion about the nature of democracy seems to have reached its zenith at the very apex of its popularity. As we attempt to apply term to an increasing variety of human experiences, we become progressively confused about its meaning. It is not diffi cult to see why this is so. First, the very use of the word "democracy" evokes in many people a very strong, positive emotion. Perhaps "democracy" is the emotional "buzz word" of the late twentieth century. The evaluative connotation of "democracy" is so strong that some are 3 tempted to banish the term from "scientific" discourse. Second, many political actors (perhaps especially political elites) have vested interests in leaving the meaning of the term as vague as possible. Given the strong positive connotation of the term, no one has any desire to have his/ her practices labeled "undemocratic."^ Criteria which clearly distinguish the "democratic" from the "undemocratic" would render the appropriation of the symbol "democracy" most difficult, and it is easy to understand why some people have little desire to provide such criteria. Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, we are faced with the fact that the post-World War II era provides us no authentic, self-conscious anti-democrats with which to compare ourselves. Officially, democracy has no enemies. Of course, this does not imply that governmental practices around the world are becoming increasingly uniform, but only that the term "democracy" is applied to a very large number of extremely diverse institutions and cultures. "Democracy" seems to mean many different things to different people. This confusion concerning the proper use of the term "democracy" can be illustrated by briefly reviewing three attempts to delimit "the democratic" from "the undemocratic." The first of these, and perhaps the most ethnocentric, is Robert Dahl's A Preface to Democratic Theory. Dahl's con ception of democracy (or "polyarchy") is one in which voting between alternatives assumes a very prominent role: The only rule compatible with decision-making in a... democracy is the majority principle.... The Rule: The principle of majority rule prescribes that in choosing among alternatives, the alternative preferred by the greater number is selected. That is, given two or more alternatives x, y, etc., in order for x to be government policy it is a necessary and sufficient condition that the number who prefer x to any alternative is greater than the number who prefer any single alter native to x.6 The existance and availability of multiple alternatives is a necessary condition for "The Rule" to be considered o p e r a t i v e . ^ Dahl thus explicitly rejects the claim of the Soviet Union to be an authentic "democracy," since (according to Dahl) the Soviets do not permit genuine choices between alternatives: What we balk at in accepting the vote of the Soviet citizen as an expression of pre ference is that he is not permitted to choose among all the alternatives that we, as outside observers, regard as in some sense potentially