ELECTORAL STUDIES AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: A BRITISH VIEW

In: Political studies, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 1-9

Abstract

Until Rousseau it was generally admitted that the people's part in gov is negative, but since his time it has become fashionable to speak of a positive 'will of the people' which it is the business of legislatures & executives to put into effect. As this radical myth does not tally with the facts, there have arisen 2 vocabularies of democratic politics: a vocabulary of accepted generalities for popular consumption & a more down-to-earth 'business' vocabulary. This is perhaps essential to modern parliamentary democracy & in itself is harmless, though enemies of the system can point to it as evidence that the system is a sham. Even serious S's of democratic politics like Ostrogorski & Michels have been misled by the radical myth about democracy into criticizing democracy for the wrong reasons. To avoid their mistakes we must understand how the part played by the people in parliamentary democracy, negative though it may be, makes the system what it is, & also serves to prevent the manipulation of the passive majority by a pol'ly active minority. Recent studies of general elections have made a considerable contribution towards this understanding, though the makers of them have been to some extent victims of the radical myth. AA-IPSA.