Three Paradoxes of Democracy

Ideas of Larry Diamond

1. Conflict versus Consensus

Democracy is a system of institutionalized competition for power.

Too much conflict can yield instabilityDemocracy requires conflict - but not

too much. Cleavage must be tempered with

consensus

2. Representativeness versus Governability

Democracy disperses power, prevents its excessive concentration

But democracy must have what Alexander Hamilton called “energy.”

All governments need to act quickly at times.Democracies need to respond to group

demands, and sometimes to resist them.Too much representation can yield paralysis.The challenge: to represent conflicting

interests without being captured by them.

3. Consent versus Effectiveness

Democracy means “rule by the people.”But democracies must not only have the

consent of the people, they must also be effective governments.

To be approved by the people, democracies must provide effective performance across a variety of issues.

But the process of gathering consent is not always efficient.

Performance

Democracies doe not necessarily perform more efficiently than do authoritarian regimes.

Authoritarian regimes can ignore public discontent while they press for long-term payoffs.

Pinochet’s Chile is a good example.

Performance #2

Democracies do not inherently perform better or worse economically than do authoritarian regimes.

In the long run, democracies must maintain a broad consensus on economic policy.

Performance #3

But democracies are a more modern form of governance.

Democracies can interact with more complex and heterogeneous societies with modern economies.

Modern and growing economies often require modern governmental systems in order to continue to grow in size and complexity.

Adding Stability

One relatively easy way to add stability to a democracy is to make is somewhat less representative.

This can be accomplished in a proportional representational setting by raising the electoral threshold.

Germany - 5%, Israel - 1%, Turkey - 10%

Ethnic and Party Cleavages

There are four principal mechanisms for managing potentially divisive ethnicity within a democracy.

Ethnic cleavages never die.They can destroy any society if they

are not managed effectively.Rwanda and Burundi are two

examples among many.

Four mechanisms

FederalismProportionality in distribution of

resources and powerMinority rightsSharing or rotation of power

Federal systems

Disperse conflict, transferring it to local and state levels

Generate intraethnic conflict, pitting different factions of ethnic group against one another in the struggle to control local and state governments

Induce interethnic cooperation, forming coalitions along changing issue lines

Federal systems #2

Generate crosscutting cleavages when some ethnic groups are split into different states, with different interests, advantages, and needs

Reduce disparities by enabling backward and minority peoples to rise within their own state educational and bureaucratic systems.

Federal systems #3

Federal systems give all major territorially based ethnic groups some control over their own affairs, and some opportunity to gain power at multiple levels.

But... STABLE DEMOCRACY IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A SOCIETY WHERE ETHNIC CLEAVAGES ARE DEEP AND POWER IS HEAVILY CENTRALIZED.