|
| |
 |
The identity and
competition theory (I)
|
Western democracy attaches great
significance to the differentiation between the identity theory and the
competition theory. This differentiation has long provided stimulus for scientific
discussion and still points the way to the future. The number of critics has increased,
however, because they regard the comparison as being
fraught with ideological problems and too simplistic.
 | The homogeneity theory influenced
by Rousseau is based on a uniform (homogenous) will of the people
and on a pre-given commonweal ("identity-based" theory of
democracy). It denies the legitimacy of conflicts of interests. Based on this
understanding, democracy means that the government and the people are
identical (oneness). The principle of representation is fundamentally
rejected:
The "will of the people" cannot be represented. The claim of this
model to be democratic and its assumption of politically active citizens is not
contested - yet the dangers linked to this system are quite obvious. Indeed, attempts at creating
oneness and agreement among the people, at maintaining it once established
and suppressing differing interests
could, in extreme cases, lead to a system of total rule. And this is why this
system has often been referred to as "totalitarian democracy".
The "ruler" or "party" is responsible for implementing
the established will of the people. Deviations and opposition to the agreed
will is regarded as heresy. The people decide what is good for them and then
impose it upon themselves. |
| The competition theory is
based on the Anglo-Saxon model and assumes the existence and justification
of differing interests. According to this theory, political opinion is
formed in a pluralistic society through an open process of debate and
argument between differing heterogeneous interest groups. A certain amount
of agreement on basic principles, however, is necessary. The sheer amount of
differing opinions and social conflicts means that it is impossible to reach
an absolutely correct solution. To resolve this problem the principle of
majority rule has to form the basis of the decision-making process. Of
course, the possibility of a "majority tyranny" seeking to
infringe upon democracy's rules or violate inalienable human rights is
prohibited. For even a majority has its shortcomings. A strongly developed
sense for the protection of minorities (...) forms an essential constitutive
base for this understanding of democracy. The elected representatives, not
bound to their promises during their term in office, present themselves for
re-election before the electorate at the end of the legislative period. This
theory views democracy as rule with the approval of the people rather than
rule of the people. To this end, the competition theory takes its lead from
the representation theory |
[Eckhard Jesse, aus: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung:
Parlamentarische Demokratie 1, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 227,
1993]
[Back
to top of page]
Three illustrations are available to complement
the following text. These illustrations highlight and compare the different
approaches used by the two theories:
[Back
to top of page]
|
The identity and
competition theory (II)
|
The identity theory is based on the idea of
oneness between the ruler and the people. It is based on Jean-Jacques Rousseau's
postulate that the popular will (volonté générale) rather than the majority
will (volonté de tous) should form the foundation of law.
According to Rousseau this popular will is objectively recognizable and uniform.
The decisive factor in the identity theory for use in practice is that this
oneness formed by the ruler and the people does not allow for special interests
or special groups. Advocates of an anti-pluralistic state system only recognize plebiscite
(referenda) decisions and as a result of this reject all "intermediate
powers" such as parties and associations. Parties and associations are
regarded as supporting (self-obsessed) special interests, whose effect is to destroy
the oneness formed by the ruler and the people. This oneness, on the other hand,
sets out to realize its ideas in a system of councils bound to the imperative
mandate. This imperative mandate means that the delegates (councilors) are
directly dependent on the commission and instructions of the voters and,
therefore, can be voted out of office at any time (recall). Recent history has
shown that in reality this "uniform will of the people" was often
implemented with force while referring to the oneness of the rulers and the
people. Indeed, it was this that led to the rise of the Nazis and the communist
system.
In contrast to the identity theory, the competition theory developed in
Anglo-Saxon countries is based on differing interests and interest groups rather
than a popular will. Joseph A. Schumpeter
(1883 to 1950) describes this theory thus:
"The democratic method is a way of organizing institutions to achieve
political decisions for which competence is derived through a competitive battle
for the votes of the people."
This method is a pragmatic one. It is based on the recognition that pure size
and differing opinions in a large modern-day state means that the people are not
in a position to govern themselves directly. Instead, government has to be based on
representation by political parties in parliament, which have been elected
during free elections. The core content of the competition theory is largely in
line with the more recent pluralism theory. The main aspects of this theory can
be summarized as follows:
| The contradicting interests that exist in a
society will be accepted. |
| The public weal cannot be determined in
advance (a priori). |
| The public weal comes as the result of compromise
arrived at subsequently (a posteriori) through a process of political rivalry. |
| A balance of differing interests can
only be arrived at when a minimum degree of consensus exists about the rules
(values). This means that politically active groups must be both able and
ready to enter into compromise. If political groups view politics as an ideological
battle and regard opponents as the enemy, the basis for a pluralistic
political system is removed. |
| The main role of the state in a pluralistic
society is to create the conditions necessary for a balance of interests to be achieved
and to make sure that the rules are adhered to. |
[Hans-Helmuth Knütter, aus: Bundeszentrale für politische
Bildung: Demokratie, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 165, Neudruck
1992]
[Back
to top of page]
|
