Jonah Patel
In his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Robert Dahl critically examines the American Constitution, questioning its democratic character and suggesting areas for improvement. Dahl identifies elements of the American system that are potentially undemocratic, such as the federal system, the bicameral legislature, and the electoral college system. He encourages readers to think critically about the origins of the political system and explore ways to create a more democratic society. Dahl's work invites readers to reflect on the unique aspects of the American constitutional system and consider options for achieving greater equality among citizens.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Uniqueness | The American Constitution is unique and no other well-established democracy has copied it. |
| Undemocratic elements | The federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system. |
| Founders | All the founders were men. |
| Right to vote | The original Constitution never articulated an affirmative right to vote to anyone, and instead left the vote-granting privileges to states. |
| Supreme Court | Supreme Court justices are not impartial and are nominated by the president. |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
$18.22 $19.99
What You'll Learn
The American Constitution's undemocratic elements
The American Constitution has been criticised for its undemocratic elements, which have been detailed by political scientists such as Robert A. Dahl. In his book, "How Democratic is the American Constitution?", Dahl argues that the Constitution falls short as an instrument of truly democratic government. He highlights several features of the American political system that are potentially undemocratic, including the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.
One of the most significant undemocratic elements of the American Constitution is the Electoral College. The Electoral College system, which was designed to be a compromise between a popular vote and a congressional selection of the president, has been criticised for allowing candidates to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. This has occurred in recent times, such as in the 2000 election, where Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote, and the 2016 election, where Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but still lost the election. The Electoral College skews political power towards smaller states and allows the majority vote to be overruled, which is not in line with democratic ideals.
Another undemocratic feature of the American political system is the Senate. The Senate, which is based on equal representation for each state, regardless of population, also ties votes to geography rather than population. This results in a similar skewing of political power towards smaller states, as their votes carry more weight per capita than those of larger states.
The founding fathers of the American Constitution were all white men, and their worldviews and interests were not representative of the diverse population of the country. They did not consider the interests of slaves, free Blacks, Native Americans, or other non-white groups. Additionally, the original Constitution did not grant the right to vote to anyone, leaving voting privileges to the states. Initially, only a minority of property-owning white men could vote, and it was only through later amendments that the right to vote was extended to people of colour, women, and those over the age of eighteen.
The American Constitution's judicial system has also been criticised for its lack of democratic accountability. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and approved by the undemocratic Senate. They hold their seats for life, often long after they have fallen out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans. Historically, a majority of conservative justices have implemented conservative ideology through their rulings, empowering corporations and influencing the country's character in favour of particular interests.
Sierra Leone's One-Party System: Effective or Not?
You may want to see also
The Constitution as a tool of democratic principles
The American Constitution has been criticised for its undemocratic nature, with some arguing that it should be more democratic. Notably, Robert Dahl, a leading scholar of democratic theory, highlights several elements of the American system that are potentially undemocratic, including the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system. He argues that these features may hinder significant democratic reform.
Dahl's critique centres on the idea that the Constitution, as originally written, contained "undemocratic elements." For example, slavery was accepted, and suffrage was effectively limited to white men, specifically property-owning ones. The Constitution also did not articulate a positive right to vote for anyone, leaving voting privileges to the states. Over time, amendments have extended the right to vote to people of colour, women, and those over eighteen.
The electoral college system has also been criticised for potentially frustrating the will of the majority, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, where the winner of the popular vote did not become president. The Supreme Court, whose justices are nominated by the president and approved by the undemocratic Senate, also influences the country's direction through their rulings, often implementing conservative ideology.
Despite these criticisms, it is important to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written. The founders, all men, represented interests not widely shared by the rest of the population, particularly regarding women and racial minorities. Given the social norms of the time, it is challenging to expect a more democratic document.
However, Dahl encourages Americans to think critically about the origins of their political system and consider ways to create a more democratic society. This includes comparing the American system to other stable democracies and learning from their approaches to achieving democratic equality.
The Constitution and Democracy: What's the Link?
You may want to see also
The Constitution's legitimacy
The legitimacy of the American Constitution has been a subject of debate and scrutiny, with some arguing that it falls short of being a truly democratic document. One of the key critiques of the Constitution is its failure to initially grant universal suffrage. The original Constitution did not explicitly guarantee the right to vote to anyone, leaving it to the states to determine voting privileges. As a result, voting rights were often restricted to a small minority of property-owning white men, excluding women, people of colour, and those without property. While amendments have since expanded voting rights, the lack of an affirmative right to vote in the original document is a mark against its democratic legitimacy.
Another aspect of the Constitution that has been questioned is the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, both of whom may not be representative of the popular will. Additionally, justices hold their seats for life, which can lead to a disconnect between their decisions and the evolving values of American society. The lack of democratic accountability among Supreme Court justices has been a point of contention, particularly when their rulings carry significant weight in interpreting state and federal laws.
The federal system, bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system have also been highlighted as potentially undemocratic elements. The electoral college, for example, has been criticised for potentially overriding the majority vote in presidential elections, as seen in the cases of George W. Bush in 2001 and Donald Trump in 2017, who became presidents despite their opponents receiving more votes nationwide. This raises questions about the democratic legitimacy of a system that can produce outcomes contrary to the popular vote.
However, it is important to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written. The founders of the Constitution were operating within the social norms of their time, and the document represented a significant step towards democracy compared to other political systems of that era. The Constitution has also undergone amendments and interpretations over time, reflecting a dynamic understanding of democracy and an effort to create a more inclusive and representative political system.
Despite these justifications, critics argue that the Constitution's influence on the political system may hinder significant democratic reform. The very structure of the Constitution and the processes it outlines may make it more challenging to implement changes that align with democratic ideals. This critique underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the Constitution's legitimacy and the need for critical examination to ensure a more democratic society.
James Madison's Age When Drafting the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$11.95 $16.99
$29.95 $29.95
The Framers' perspective
The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who designed the document to endure. They sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes and to establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The Framers were responding to the aftermath of the American Revolution, which had left destroyed property, weakened economic demand, depreciating money, and exclusion from trade with the British Empire, resulting in a severe economic recession. Heavy taxes were levied on residents to repay war debts, leading to land foreclosures and violent insurrections. The Framers believed that the government was created to protect property, not redistribute it.
The Framers of the Constitution had a different idea of democracy than Americans do today. They were concerned about the excesses of democracy and sought to limit populist power. They believed that too many people were participating in politics and voting, and that state legislatures were becoming too radical and beholden to the interests of the common man. The Framers wanted to insulate the federal government from political accountability and ensure that only people of wealth and education could vote. They saw to it that only one part of one branch of the federal government, the House of Representatives, is popularly elected by the people.
The Framers wrote a Constitution that is in its "principles, structure, and whole mass, purely and unalterably Democratic." They included elements designed to "control and mitigate" the ill effects of more direct forms of democratic government, believing that they were "saving both from their excesses." They sought to protect "negative liberty," or the freedom of the individual from oppressive governmental action. They established a complex structure with checks and balances among federal branches and delegated limited powers to the federal government, diffusing power and preventing despotism.
The Framers of the Constitution were also visionaries who designed the document to be flexible and adaptable. They wrote in a process for changing or amending the Constitution, availing themselves of that process with the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804. While the principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time, the application of those principles must evolve as society changes and as experience informs our understanding. For example, the provision granting Congress the power to maintain the nation's "land and naval Forces" was eventually seen as authorizing an air force.
The US Constitution: Still a Brilliant Solution?
You may want to see also
The Constitution's flaws
The American Constitution has been criticised for its undemocratic elements, which have been detailed by political scientists such as Robert A. Dahl. Firstly, the Constitution was written by a group of men who shared similar backgrounds and worldviews. All of the writers were men, and they were predominantly white, wealthy, and educated. This lack of diversity meant that the interests of marginalised groups, including women, racial minorities, and those without property, were not adequately represented or considered.
Secondly, the Constitution did not originally guarantee the right to vote for all citizens. Voting privileges were left to the states, which initially granted the right to vote only to a minority of property-owning white men. Over time, this has been expanded through amendments to include people of colour, women, and those over the age of eighteen. However, the original text of the Constitution fell short of ensuring democratic participation for all.
Thirdly, the Constitution's establishment of the federal system, bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system has been criticised as potentially undemocratic. The electoral college, in particular, has been scrutinised for its ability to override the majority vote, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. The Supreme Court, whose justices are nominated by the president and approved by the undemocratic Senate, also wields significant power and has been criticised for its lack of democratic accountability.
Lastly, the Constitution's framers allowed for the acceptance of slavery and the limitation of suffrage to white men. These provisions have since been amended, but they reflect the undemocratic nature of the original document, which failed to uphold the principles of equality and universal suffrage.
While the American Constitution emerged from a democratic experiment, it has been subject to ongoing scrutiny and calls for reform to create a more democratic society.
Virginia's Constitution: Blueprint for the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Robert Dahl identifies several elements of the American system that are unusual and potentially undemocratic, including the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.
Dahl compares the American constitutional system to other democratic systems and finds that it is unique. No other well-established democracy has copied it.
The American Constitution has been criticised for its undemocratic character, with some arguing that it is not a true instrument for democratic government.
Dahl suggests that the American political system could be altered to achieve greater equality among citizens and a more democratic society. This could include changes to the electoral college and the Senate, which tie votes to geography rather than population.
Thinking critically about the origins of the American political system and considering opportunities for reform can help create a more democratic society.
