Participatory vs. Pluralistic Democratic Models
The Participatory Democratic Model
The basic principle of the modern reinterpretation of the participatory democratic model is that defining democracy solely around the protection of individual interests is insufficient. This idea must be balanced with the need for public participation. Such participation serves to ensure collective self-government and succeeds in creating a citizenry that is informed and committed to the public good. Collective deliberation on public affairs and civic self-government generates these outcomes, and the forms of direct participation and representative instruments complement protective institutions.
From this point of view, certain features are highlighted:
- Collective deliberation in the public sphere.
- Individual self-development through participation.
- Universal suffrage and the use of mediating institutions for citizen participation.
- Citizen participation in a dense civil society populated with mediating institutions.
- Democracy considered a lifestyle, not just as a set of institutions.
Challenges and Objectives
The problem facing this model is discovering the means by which the people can be present in the main centers of political decision-making. It also seeks to determine how to produce a citizenry committed to the democratic values and habits necessary for democracy, understood as self-government. If democracy is, as J. Dewey or Habermas argue, a way of life, it cannot be expressed merely in institutions or rules. Instead, it must be embodied in practices able to develop certain values, the public good, and a citizenry capable of political wisdom. To achieve that and generate a public sense of community, it is necessary to promote the alleviation or elimination of certain social or economic inequalities. Proponents also worry about ensuring that citizens have the capacity and ability to participate.
This model suggests that increasing citizen participation in the management and organization of resources is a means of overcoming these challenges. It is assumed that increased public participation would improve management and reduce bureaucracy. The aim would be to bring citizens closer to decision-making bodies at all levels, thereby helping to increase both direct self-rule and control over representatives.
Criticisms of the Model
Some believe that this portrait of democracy is wrong and unrealistic, as it requires individuals to have a commitment to the public good that is difficult to perform effectively. Critics also argue that it disregards the institutional aspects where the most important political decisions are made or that it fails to pose a viable alternative to what currently exists.
Model 3: The Pluralistic-Competitive Model
This model of democracy was developed in reaction to the criticism of the participatory democratic ideal made by elite theorists. Indeed, elite theorists, who had a great impact in the first third of this century, argued that the ideas of self-government or control of representatives by those they represent are absurd. They believe that policy direction in any regime is in the hands of minority elites.
However, the authors who developed this pluralistic-competitive model argue that this critique exaggerates the stability and soundness of the ruling elite. It also disregards the various ways through which elites occupy and hold their positions. Democracy, in this view, is characterized by the various forms of selecting these elites and how these forms affect the mobility and pluralism of the elite.