Politics. The political traditions of Britain and the U.S. date back about twenty-five centuries to the ancient Greeks. Most of the vocabulary of politics in the two countries derives from the Greek language. Of course, the meaning and significance of the words have evolved considerably over the centuries. Nevertheless, it was the ancient Greeks who were the pioneers of Western political thinking and their influence today remains very great.

The word politics comes from the Greek word polis which means "town." We often see this usage of polis in place names, for example, Indianapolis (the capital of the state of Indiana) means "Indian town." So the word politics refers to the public affairs of towns--the first organized governmental entities in ancient Greece.

The word government comes from the Greek word kubernete which refers to the steering oar used on early Greek ships. Thus, to govern is to steer or to direct the public affairs of a political entity.

A remnant of the original Greek word is seen in the adjective gubernatorial. For example, if someone is running for the office of governor in one of the American states, it may be said: "She is a candidate in the gubernatorial election." Gubernatorial elections are important in the U.S. because several recent presidents (Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) were state governors before they moved into the White House.

A government is a social institution within which politics takes place. Governments are different from other social institutions because the political process is authoritative. Governments can compel a person's behavior by the threat of force or by the use of force. Other social institutions such as business corporations, churches, private clubs, and universities are not authoritative. They cannot use compulsion to force people to behave in certain ways. Americans and Britishers who work for a company, belong to a church, are a member of a club, or who are students at a university are not subject to the authoritative jurisdiction of those organizations. If they don't like the rules they have the exit option--they can quit. They obey the rules and policies of these organizations only if they choose to obey. Since they are free to terminate their connection to these organizations, these organizations do not have compulsory jurisdiction over them.

Both Britain and America have long traditions of private, non-governmental organizations and associations. Historically, most of the economic, religious, recreational, and educational dimensions of life in these two countries have operated outside of government control. So, for most Britishers and Americans the distinction between authoritative governmental institutions and voluntary private institutions is very clear and very obvious.

In other countries with long statist traditions where the government owns or controls all social institutions--business enterprises, churches, clubs, and schools--these institutions are governmental and are, therefore, authoritative. In such countries the compulsion of the political system extends to virtually all dimensions of social life. If the exit option is not available no institution can be entirely voluntary.

A major theme that runs throughout British and American history is the placement of the line separating the public from the private sphere. In both countries government is seen as having a limited role in society. Many people see politics both as a way to solve important societal problems and as a problem in itself that should be limited and contained as much as possible.

We will define politics as the authoritative allocation of values. The political process is, as shown above, authoritative. It can and will compel your behavior. If you do not obey the rules laid down by the political process there are police, prison guards, and soldiers to insure your obedience. Your participation in government as a citizen is not voluntary. Unlike private social institutions, you cannot resign from the political process.

Many Americans are angry these days with all the laws, rules, regulations, and taxes imposed upon them. They are tired of police, lawyers, and courts. They are infuriated by pettifogging bureaucrats and the fines and prisons that stand behind them. So imagine an angry American citizen saying this: "That's it! I quit! I'm not going to take any more bullying from my government! I'm moving to Australia!" Of course, when he arrives in Australia he will discover that he is subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Australian political system. The Australian system has even more regulations and higher taxes than the U.S. Also, unlike the U.S., voting is compulsory in Australia. If you fail to vote you will be fined. If you refuse to pay the fine, you are put in prison.

Thus, politics is authoritative. The political system has compulsory jurisdiction over its citizens. But what does it do with its authority? This brings us to the second part of the definition of politics. The political system allocates values. Values such as wealth, status, and opportunity are allocated by the political system. Wealth is collected through various systems of taxation and then redistributed through government spending programs. Status is conferred by governments through the grant of licenses, charters, and permissions. Some governments continue to award titles of nobility. (Britain grants titles of nobility while the U.S. constitution expressly forbids the granting of titles by the U.S. government.) Opportunity is allocated primarily through the provision of educational opportunity. (In the U.S. about half of American youth receive some college training; in Britain about twenty percent; worldwide about one percent.)

In any system of allocation there are winners and losers. Some people get more and some get less. But win or lose the process is compulsory.

For example, many people in Scotland remain angry that most of the enormous oil wealth produced in recent decades just off the Scottish coast did not stay in Scotland. Rather, much of the oil revenue has been taken by the British government and distributed largely for the benefit of the English. The Scots are losers in the authoritative allocation process whereby North Sea oil wealth is being distributed. But win or lose, they are bound authoritatively to accept the result.

Some people in Pennsylvania, a state in the northeastern U.S., are distressed that taxpayers in Pennsylvania pay more in federal taxes to Washington, D.C., than they receive back in federal spending in Pennsylvania. In some years Pennsylvania has only received 93 cents in federal spending in Pennsylvania from every dollar sent to the federal treasury. The people of Pennsylvania are losers in the federal government's budgetary process. Wealth is literally being sucked out of Pennsylvania and is being sent to other states. In some years California, for instance, has received as high as $1.25 in federal spending for every dollar sent to Washington in federal taxes. Californians are winners and Pennsylvanians are losers. Pennsylvanians and the citizens of other states have been losing for decades. Which is one reason why millions of Americans have followed the money and moved to California.

To review, politics is the authoritative allocation of values. The political institutions we call governments can use compulsion to allocate values such as wealth, status, and opportunity. The political system does not allocate these values equally. Some people win and some people lose. But whether they win or lose, the government can use police, prisons, and armies to command their obedience.

"Wait a minute!" you are saying. "This is all true enough but most people don't obey their government because they're afraid. They support it willingly. They don't need a policeman watching them to obey the law."

Why do people willingly accept their political system? To explore the answer the reader will have to examine the next section.

Political Legitimacy. The phenomenon of people willingly supporting their political system is called political legitimacy. Our history books often leave us with the impression that the history of most countries is made up of revolutions and civil wars. This is a false impression. Most people in most countries at most times in history willingly accept and support their political systems. Political legitimacy is the norm. Revolutions and civil wars are the rare exceptions.

If we look back into Western history we can identify three sources of political legitimacy--three reasons why people voluntarily accept and support their political system. The three sources are God, excellence, and the will of the people.

God. The oldest and by far the most important source of political legitimacy during recorded history is God. God, defined in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions as the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe, has been a central figure in Western politics. In all three of the great Western religions God is depicted as choosing the persons who are to rule mankind. They, in turn, are required to obey God's laws, foster the spread of God's church, and to carry out any divine instructions. This concept, often called the divine right of kings, is quite clear. God speaks to the king and the king speaks to the people. By obeying the king the people are obeying God.

God ==> King ==> People

If people believe that this is the way the universe is structured, if they believe that their government is carrying out God's orders, then they are likely to obey their government.

Technically, this kind of government is called theocracy. Theos in Greek means God. (We see the same Greek root in theology--the study of God-- and in atheist--someone who does not believe in God.) The second part of theocracy, the -cracy, also come from Greek and means rule by. So theocracy means rule by God.

Until the twentieth century most kings and emperors in nearly all countries ruled by some kind of divine right. The ruler was the vital link connecting God to the people. The ruler was God's agent on earth. To show disrespect to the ruler was to show disrespect to God.

To this day the British monarchs utilize the divine right principle. It was God that chose the British royal family, the House of Windsor, to rule over Britain. Contemporary British coins continue to carry the abbreviated legend deo gratia regina -- queen by the grace of God. She is queen not by the grace of the parliament, not by the grace of the voters, but by the grace of God. When the present queen, Elizabeth II, dies or abdicates, the new king will receive his crown from the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

By the late twentieth century the theocratic source of legitimacy has waned considerably in importance. Only a few countries can be described as pure theocracies. In Iran members of the Islamic clergy fulfill the role of intermediaries between God and the people. Many Iranians believe that God speaks to the clergy and the clergy tell the people what God wants them to do. Thus, by obeying the laws of the Iranian government many Iranians believe that they are carrying out God's wishes.

While no longer the dominant source of political legitimacy, the divine will remains relevant to the political process. Many elected politicians in Britain and the United States claim that their programs and policies are congruent with God's wishes. References to God appear in virtually every major speech given by every modern American president and presidential candidate.

Theocratic legitimacy does not require a believe in a Western-style personal God. The laws of nature or the laws of economics can fill the same role as God. Indeed, any transcendent reality that is accepted by people can serve as a substitute for God. For example, if a people believe that a free market economic system is the best way to order the material world and if their government proclaims its devotion to free market economics, the citizens are more likely to support and obey their government.

In summary, if people believe that their government is carrying out God's will or the laws of nature or the laws of economics they are more likely to support and obey that government.

Excellence. The second source of political legitimacy in the Western world is excellence. If people believe that the most excellent people are running the government--the best qualified, the best trained, the most skilled, the most sincere--then it stands to reason to obey their orders.

Most people accept the logic of turning to experts and specialists for guidance. However, we follow the guidance of physicians, lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, auto mechanics, investment counselors, and the like if and only if we believe that they are excellent in what they do. If we have doubts about their qualifications, their training, their skill, or their integrity we will probably not follow their advice.

Technically, this kind of government is call aristocracy. Aristos in Greek means the best. So aristocracy means rule by the best. People obey aristocratic governments because they believe that the best people are in charge. For many centuries people in China willingly obeyed Confucian aristocrats because they had proven that they were the best people to rule by achieving the highest scores on the imperial examinations.

Throughout most of British and American history a handful of aristocrats, blessed with formal education and experienced in managing wealth, have been the rulers. It is easy to forget that until the twentieth century most people were illiterate, were steeped in ignorance and superstition, had never traveled more than a few kilometers from where they were born, and had never handled money. The idea that the people, the great ignorant masses, should tell the government what to do was regarded by both aristocrats and commoners alike as simply absurd. It was sensible and logical for the masses to defer to those with education and experience in managing wealth to operate the government.

If aristocrats prove themselves to be inept and corrupt, then they are no longer, by definition, aristocrats. They are not the most excellent. People are unlikely to obey them. It is often suggested that the collapse of many Eastern European governments in the late 1980s was produced by a loss of political legitimacy by those governments. Claiming to be guided by the best theories of politics and economics and claiming to be the best people to carry out these best theories, the party aristocrats of the Eastern European regimes had received wide public support for many years. However, as their economies stagnated and tottered toward collapse in the late 1980s, the ruling elite could no longer conceal their ineptitude and corruption from their populations. Ultimately, the people--including the police, the prison guards, and the soldiers--had no reason to obey and stopped obeying. The governments vanished like dreams.

Aristocratic governance remains a powerful source of political legitimacy. If ruling elites are able provide stability and high living standards to their people they are likely to receive broad support from the citizenry. If the people believe that the best and brightest are running the government and that they are doing a good job, they are likely to support and obey that government.

However, in many countries including Britain and the U.S., aristocratic legitimacy is becoming less and less important. Many voters are coming to believe that the "best and brightest" are congenitally unable to understand and appreciate the needs of the average person. These voters suspect that aristocrats use the government to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.

The decline in aristocratic legitimacy is largely a product of the rise of the third and greatest modern source of political legitimacy, the will of the people.

The will of the people. The third and most important source of political legitimacy in the world today is the will of the people. If people believe that their government is carrying out the people's wishes, then the people are likely to support and obey that government. The logic is both circular and compelling. By obeying a government that is carrying out their wishes, the people are in essence obeying themselves.

people ==> government ==> people

Technically, this kind of legitimacy is called democracy. Demos in Greek means people. So democracy means rule by people.

For most of the past twenty-five centuries democracy has been dismissed as a silly idea. The notion that the crude, illiterate masses could tell the government what to do was simply ludicrous. Democracy, if attempted, would surely degenerate into mob rule and anarchy.

It is only in the last two centuries--with the coming of mass public education and near universal literacy--that democracy has begun to achieve some credibility. Today, the average urban factory worker in Britain and the U.S. has a better education, is better traveled, and has handled more money than the typical aristocrat of three centuries ago.

The most important political trend in the world over the past one thousand years has been the increase in the level of public participation in the political process. Slowly at first but with increased speed in recent centuries people have demanded the right to participate in the process that authoritatively allocates values.

Britain's experience with rising public participation is typical. In the Middle Ages the rural land owning gentry classes demanded a consultative role in the king's government. During the Renaissance the commercial classes in the burgeoning towns and cities struggled to join the consultative process that evolved into parliament. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution a new class of entrepreneurs and technical specialists entered the political process and helped to make parliament the dominant governmental institution. In the nineteenth century the working class and in the twentieth century women and minority groups became full participants in politics. Now that virtually all of the people have a role in the political process their will has become supreme.

The will of the people has become the dominant source of political legitimacy in the twentieth century and has virtually eclipsed the other two sources. Every government in the world today claims to be democratic. Even the most brutal military dictatorships claim to be carrying out the will of their people.

The rise of democratic legitimacy has spelled the end for most monarchies. A monarchy is a government the head of which is a king, i.e., wears a crown. Until the twentieth century most countries were monarchies. The titles varied--king, queen, emperor, empress, duke, duchess, count, countess, baron, baroness, emir, sultan, shah, etc. A republic is a government the head of which is not a king, i.e., does not wear a crown. The head of state of a republic is usually called a president.

Some Examples of Monarchies and Republics in the late 20th Century

Monarchies Republics

Britain U.S.A.

Japan China

Saudi Arabia Germany

Thailand France

Spain Russia

Malaysia Iraq

Netherlands Israel

Kuwait Vietnam

Canada Brazil

Two centuries ago there were only a few republics in the world. Today, only about ten percent of countries are monarchies. Interestingly, the continent that pioneered the ascent of democratic legitimacy, Europe, is the continent with the greatest number of monarchies today.

How do monarchies survive in a democratic age? In the past monarchies relied on theocratic and aristocratic legitimacy. Those monarchies that could not make the transition to democratic legitimacy were swept away and replaced by republics. The surviving monarchies, with Britain as a prime example, succeeded because they shifted from absolute to constitutional rule.

Absolutism and constitutionalism. The second most important political trend during the last one thousand years, deriving from the most important trend (the expansion in participation), is the gradual placing of limits on what governments can do to their people. The concept of putting limits on the government is call constitutionalism. Thus, constitutional government is limited government. Constitutionalism is not about limits that are placed on the freedom or opportunities of the individual citizen. It is about limitations that are placed on the government.

Absolute government is unlimited government. An absolute government can do whatever it likes to its people. No government is totally absolute. There are always some limitations--if only the fear by the rulers of assassination or rebellion.

Absolute and constitutional government are the opposite ends of a continuum. On one end is absolute or unlimited government and on the other end of the scale is constitutional or limited government. All governments can be placed on the scale. Historically, governments have been moving slowly from the absolute end to the constitutional end of the scale.

absolutism constitutionalism

(no limits) (many limits)

/__________________________________________/

As an example of absolute government let's look at one of Britain's most famous kings, King Henry VIII (1509-1547). There were very few limits to Henry's power. In most matters his word was law. If, while looking out the window of his palace, he saw a commoner walking by whose appearance annoyed Henry, Henry could have the man arrested and executed immediately. However, if the man was a member of the gentry class, the hereditary aristocracy, Henry's power was limited. Dating back to the Magna Carta (1215), there were legal limitations upon what Henry could do to members of the aristocracy. An aristocrat was entitled to a trial and to a jury composed of fellow aristocrats. The law stood between Henry and some of his subjects. The law limited Henry's power.

absolutism constitutionalism

/_____x________________________________/

Henry VIII

Law is an important constitutional limitation on government. People living under absolute government see law as simply the commands of the rulers. But people living under constitutional governments see law as a protection from arbitrary government action.

absolutism constitutionalism

/____x________________x__________________x__/

Henry VIII Britain U.S.

Unitary and Federal Government. Within the worldwide movement toward constitutionalism two forms of national government have emerged: unitary and federal government. Of these two forms of government, federal government is typically the more constitutional because it sets more limits on the powers of a national government.

In a unitary government there is a pre-existing central government which creates and controls smaller, local units of government.

About ninety percent of national governments in the world are unitary in form. Britain has a unitary government. The central government in London from time to time has created local governments. These local governments, variously named shires, regional councils, districts councils, and the like, depend entirely upon the central government--the British government--for their powers. The government in London can create, reshape, reorganize, or abolish these local units of government.

What distinguishes unitary from federal government is the direction of causality. Please refer to the above diagram. It is the central government that causes the local units of government to exist. The local units of government cannot oppose or seek to reform the central government without risking their abolition by the central government. Therefore, they do not constitute a limitation on the powers of the central government. The local units of government are the creatures of the central government--not its controllers.

In a federal government the small units of government pre-exist. It is the small units that come together to create a central or "federal" government.

Only about ten percent of countries in the world today have federal governments. The United States is a federal government. The central government of the United States, the so-called "federal" government in Washington, D.C., is the creation of the states. In 1787 a group of independent states (each a former British colony) held a convention that led to the creation of the current United States.

The states are the owners of the United States. They created it. Only they can change it. The Washington, D.C., government is powerless to change its structure. Any amendment to the structure of the United States requires the approval of three-fourths of the states. Indeed, the states could, if they wish to, call a new convention and abolish the United States. Each state would then be completely free to go its own way as a separate country.

During the late twentieth century several federal governments dissolved. Both Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were federal governments and both collapsed. Most of the constituent members of those federations--the small units-- went their own way and became separate sovereign countries.

There are a number of examples of members of federations breaking away and becoming separate countries. Singapore had been a member state of the Malaysian federation but seceded to become a separate sovereign state. The two members of the Czechoslovak federation--the Czech and the Slovak

republics--agreed to abolish Czechoslovakia and to create two new countries--the Czech Republic and Slovakia. One of the members of the Canadian federation, the province of Quebec, is considering a withdrawal from Canada.

Federal governments can also add new members. The old East Germany--the German Democratic Republic--was broken-up into small units which were then admitted as members of the West German federation--the German Federal Republic. Several referenda have been held in recent years to determine if the voters of Puerto Rico wish to have their Caribbean island join the United States and become the fifty-first state.

Some Examples of Unitary and Federal Governments in the Late 20th C.

Unitary Federal

Britain United States

China Germany

Japan Russia

France Australia

Italy Malaysia

Iraq Mexico

Israel Canada

Poland Switzerland

Typically, the small units that together create and control a federal central government are themselves unitary governments. Each of the fifty states in the United States has a unitary government. This is true of most of the small units (variously called states, provinces, republics, lander, cantons, etc.) in federations. One exception was the Russian republic in the old Soviet Union. The Russian republic, one of the fourteen members of the Soviet federation, was itself a federation. Thus, Russian was a federation within a federation.

Because all of the fifty states in the United States have unitary governments, the citizens of the United States have experience with both forms of government--unitary and federal. Citizens of Britain have experience only with unitary government and are usually puzzled and confused about the differences between unitary and federal government.

For Americans the federal form of their national government is seen as an important mechanism for limiting the power of that government. The Washington, D.C., government possesses only the powers granted to it by the states. The states control the national government and, by amending the national constitution, the states can override any law enacted by the central government.

The United States government, the central government of the American federation, is a weak government. The British government, like the governments of other unitary regimes, is strong. The United States government possesses a limited set of powers and cannot acquire additional power on its own. It depends on the fifty states for its structure, its powers, and even its existence. The British government is all-powerful in Britain. It defines its own powers. It creates and dominates all other governmental units in Britain.

The United States government is a structurally weak government because the group of states that created it wished it to be weak. The fifty states today continue to keep it weak. There are several reasons for this. First, there is a widespread belief that local government is better and more democratic than a national government. The government is Washington, D.C., is seen as distant from the real needs and problems of people. Because the United States is a large and very diverse country, the solution to a problem in one part of the country might not work in another part of the country.

Second, Americans are afraid that a strong government may become tyrannical. Because of the unhappy experience of the American colonies with what they saw as a tyrannical central government in London, the newly established United States was provided with a weak central government. The states granted to the national government (the United States) only those powers that were seen as necessary for protecting the national interest. All other powers were to be retained by the states. This preference for a weak central government has continued to strengthen in the late twentieth century with a majority of Americans believing that "big government" is a threat to their liberties.

Democracy. With the rise to dominance of the will of the people as the principal source of political legitimacy and the increasing demands of the people for government that is more constitutional, it is important that we analyze democracy in greater detail.

Democracy is a matter of degree, of more or less. All governments are to some extent democratic. Even in the harshest, most tyrannical regimes the will of the people has some impact on the government's behavior.

It is always incorrect to dichotomize democracy--to think of governments as either having it or not having it. During the period of the Cold War it was commonplace for people to characterize the world as composed of either democracies or dictatorships. The democracies, the countries on "our" side of the Cold War, were good and peace-loving. The dictatorships were the countries on the other side and they were uniformly bad and warlike.

In the late twentieth century, at a time when many countries are struggling to hold free, competitive elections for the first time, it is fashionable for Britishers and Americans to say: "They've never had democracy before. No wonder they're having trouble. They'll probably sink right back into barbarism and dictatorship."

In fact, all countries have experience with democracy. It is simply a matter of degree, of more or less.

Measuring Democracy. Democracy, since it is a matter of degree, can be measured. It is simply a matter of creating a measuring instrument and then using the instrument to measure the degree of democracy in various countries.

The first step in measuring democracy is to list the criteria for democracy. The criteria are the practices and institutions which indicate that democracy--rule by people--is taking place.

[It should be noted that countries with different political traditions will have different criteria for democracy. Consequently, they will have different measuring instruments for democracy. Thus, what one country means by democracy may be very different from what another country means by democracy.]

With the help of my American students over many years, I have identified some criteria for democracy that are widely held by Americans. These criteria, of course, reflect the American historical experience. Some groups of students identified as many as a dozen key indicators of democracy while others identified as few as five. These seven are typical:

Criteria for Democracy: According to American Students

1. Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly

2. Republican Form of Government

3. Competitive Elections

4. Separation of Church and State

5. Federal Form of Government

6. Written Constitution

7. Free Enterprise, Market Economy

These seven criteria are the practices and institutions that Americans are likely to look for when they judge how democratic a government is. If an American is reading about another country and learns that it has a one party system, i.e., that it does not have competitive elections, the American is likely to think: "Oops, that doesn't sound very democratic!" On the other hand, if she reads that the government respects freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, she is likely to think: "This seems very democratic."

By adding numerical weights to these criteria we can create a rough rating scale. If a country is strong on a criterion we will give it a +1 rating. If it is only average we will give it a 0 (zero). If it is weak on a criterion we will give it a -1. So, since we have seven criteria, the highest total score a country can receive is a +7 and the lowest score is a -7.

Measuring Scale for the Degree of Democracy

/___________________________________________________/

+7 0 -7

Most Democratic Least Democratic

Now that we have a measuring instrument let's measure some countries for their level of democracy.

We will begin with the United States. Taking the first criterion, most American students give the U.S. a +1 score for freedom of speech, press, and assembly. By world standards they believe the U.S. ranks very high in its level of political freedom. Since the U.S. is a republic it receives a +1. The U.S. clearly has competitive elections. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush were kicked-out of the White House by the voters. So the U.S. receives a +1 on this criterion. The institutions of church and state are kept largely separate in the U.S. so another +1 is awarded. The U.S. is a federal government so yet another +1 is given. The U.S. has a written constitution (+1) and it has a predominantly market economy (+1).

So, the total score for the U.S. is a +7. This gives the U.S. the highest possible score on our scale of democracy. Should Americans be proud of this? Not necessarily. When Americans, using their own historical experience, measure themselves by their own criteria they are apt to come out on top.

Now, using our "American" measuring instrument, let's measure Britain. Taking the first criterion, some American students have doubts about Britain's level of freedom. The British government censors the press and restricts speech and assembly--especially in Northern Ireland. They give Britain a "0" (zero) or average score. Britain is a monarchy, not a republic, so it is given a -1. Britain does have competitive elections--the ruling party is ejected from power periodically by the voters. However, the head of state, the queen, is not elected and one chamber of the British parliament, the House of Lords, is also not elected. Nonetheless, American students tend to give Britain a +1 for its elections. There is no separation of church and state in Britain. Indeed, there is an official church of state. Britain is given a -1 here. Britain is a unitary government, not a federal government, so it receives a -1. While it has long constitutional traditions, Britain does not have a written constitution that specifically limits the powers of the central government. Thus, Britain receives another -1. American students are aware that the British government socialized much of British industry during the early post-World War Two period. And, while Prime Minister Thatcher privatized substantial parts of the economy, there remains a very large public sector, for instance, a socialized medical system. So, American students typically give Britain a "0" (zero) or average score for the market economy criterion.

The total score for Britain is a -3. Clearly, using the American measuring instrument, Britain is far less democratic than the U.S. Of course, I have conducted the very same exercise with British students in Britain and, using British criteria and a British measuring instrument, Britain emerges as the most democratic of all countries.

Now let's apply our "American" measuring instrument to China. American students, seeing stories of human rights violations in the media, give China a -1 for respecting individual freedom. China receives a +1 for being a republic. Dominated by a single large party, Chinese elections are not seen as competitive and receive a -1. China has a secular government with a separation of church and state so it receives a +1. China has a unitary rather than a federal government so a -1 is scored. A +1 is scored because China does have a modern written constitution. Finally, while China is moving toward a market economy, the state sector continues to dominate the economy so China is given an average or "0" score.

The total score for China is a "0" placing China in the middle of the democracy scale. Applying our "American" measuring instrument China is seen as less democratic than the U.S. and more democratic than Britain.

Scores Given By American Students

Criteria USA Britain China

1. Freedom -1 +1 0

2. Republic +1 -1 +1

3. Comp. Elections +1 +1 -1

4. Church and State +1 -1 +1

5. Federal +1 -1 -1

6. Written Const. +1 -1 +1

7. Market Economy +1 0 0

Totals +7 -3 0

USA China Britain

/X______________________X_________X________________/

+7 0 -3 -7

Most Democratic Least Democratic

The Two Types of Democracy. Dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks, Western thinkers have defined two basic types of democracy. The first, direct democracy, has rarely been put into practice. Many Americans and most people in Britain have no experience whatever with direct democracy and do not know what it is. The second type of democracy, indirect or representative democracy, is widely used around the world and, for most people, it is the only kind of democracy they know.

Direct Democracy. In direct democracy the people themselves operate the government in a hands-on fashion. They do not choose other people to run the government for them. With direct democracy the people themselves are the government--they perform all legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government.

Ancient Athens, one of the leading city-states of ancient Greece, experimented with direct democracy for a brief time. Every few weeks a meeting was held of all the citizens of Athens. This meeting was the government of Athens. Each citizen was free to stand up at these meetings and to propose new laws. For instance, one citizen might rise and propose that the tax rate be raised by 5%. After the proposal was debated the meeting would vote on the proposal. If a majority of the citizens in attendance voted "yes" the proposal became law. Another citizen might stand up and propose that the admiral in command of the Athenian navy be fired. The proposal would be debated and if a majority voted "yes" the admiral was dismissed. Another citizen might rise and accuse his neighbor of a crime. Witnesses would be called, evidence presented, and speeches made. The accused person would be convicted of the crime if a majority of the citizens at the meeting voted "guilty."

Thus, Athens had a direct democracy. The citizens did not choose representatives who then formed a government and conducted the government on behalf of the citizens. The citizens themselves directly conducted the government. The citizens were the government.

Of course, ancient Athens was a small city-state. The total number of citizens amount to only several hundred. Since the time of the ancient Greeks is has been widely believed that direct democracy could only be successful where the number of citizens was very small. However, in the twentieth century, as we will see later, several forms of direct democracy suitable to places with millions of citizens have been developed.

A contemporary example of direct democracy in the United States is the New England Town Meeting form of government. New England, in the northeastern corner of the U.S., has many small rural towns. In some of these towns a meeting of the residents is held about twice a year. The meeting is the government of the town. They do not elect a town council to run the town for them. Everyone is "elected" and serves as a member of the council. Within limits set by state law, the citizens of these towns are free to offer proposals regarding town laws (including taxes) at the town meetings. If a majority of the citizens at a meeting vote "yes" then a proposal becomes law.

The New England Town Meeting, like the assembly in ancient Athens, can operate successfully because there are only--at most--a few hundred people involved. To hold a similar sort of town meeting in New York City would no doubt be chaotic and unworkable.

Is direct democracy suitable only in small political entities? No, there are several forms of direct democracy that have been developed in the U.S. (but not in Britain) that do work when millions of citizens are involved. These forms of direct democracy are called initiative, referendum, and recall.

Initiative. An initiative is a process begun (initiated) by citizens whereby the citizens themselves directly make law. Typically, one citizen or a group of citizens draft a possible law. Then other citizens sign petitions in support of the proposed law. If a sufficient number of signatures is obtained then the proposed law is put on the ballot at the next general election where the citizens vote either "yes" or "no." If a simple majority votes "yes" the proposed law becomes law.

For example, imagine that a group of university students (in one of the U.S. states that permits initiatives) are angry about the high tuition they must pay. So, one day, a group of students writes a proposed law--a law that bans tuition payments and that requires the state government to pay the entire cost of university education. Next, they collect several hundred thousand signatures of citizens who support their proposed law. If sufficient signatures are collected--in many places five percent of the registered voters must sign--the proposed law is put to a vote in the next election. If the voters say "yes" the proposal becomes law.

It is important to note that no legislature or parliament is involved in the initiative process. The voters by-pass the elected institutions of government that normally make law. It is easy to see why the elected politicians who serve in legislatures are often hostile to initiatives.

Initiatives are not permitted in Britain nor are they allowed at the federal level in the U.S. Only about a third of the states in the U.S. permit initiatives. A famous example of the use of the initiative came in the 1970s when the voters in California voted themselves a huge tax cut.

Initiatives are very popular with interest groups. Commercial interests, farmers, labor unions, professional groups, sportsmen, and minority groups use initiatives to further their interests. Every group that wants lower taxes, government subsidies, protection from competition, or exemption from certain laws may launch an initiative drive. Of course, the voters are often suspicious of the motives behind initiative campaigns and vote "no."

The initiative process is nearly a pure form of direct democracy, i.e., the people themselves are directly making law.

Referendum. A referendum differs from an initiative in that a governmental unit takes the initiative to launch the process--not the citizens themselves. In a referendum a unit of government--a city council, a state legislature, or a national parliament--refers a matter to the voters for a decision. Instead of the elected representatives of the voters approving or rejecting a measure, the measure is put on the ballot at the next election for the voters to decide themselves.

In some countries, such as France, the President is able to use referenda to by-pass the national parliament by putting questions directly before the voters. The British parliament has always been hostile to all forms of direct democracy but in recent times has been forced to conduct referenda on thorny questions such as Scottish separatism and British participation in European institutions.

There is no provision for referenda in the U.S. constitution so there are no referenda at the federal level in the U.S. However, most of the fifty states do permit referenda. Often, a referendum is used by state and local governments as a way for elected representatives to avoid or "duck" controversial issues. Instead of a city council voting to enact higher taxes they may refer the matter to the voters in a referendum. Thus, the officials escape blame for raising taxes. If the voters vote themselves higher taxes they have only themselves to blame.

Recall. The recall election is similar to an initiative in that the citizens begin the process. An initiative is launched by citizens to create a new law while a recall election is launched by citizens to oust an elected representative from office. A recall election is a procedure whereby the voters can remove an official from office at any time.

Like an initiative, a recall begins with a petition campaign. If a sufficient number of signatures are collected (typically about five percent of the registered voters) a special election is called. The citizens then vote either "yes" or "no" to recall (oust) the official from office. If a majority vote "yes" the official is removed from office immediately. A second special election is then held to fill the vacancy.

Britain does not have recall elections nor does the U.S. at the federal level. Most of the fifty states in the U.S. do provide for recall elections at the local level.

A recall election amounts to a peaceful rebellion against a member of the government. It is a highly constitutional procedure since it holds elected officials directly accountable to the voters at all times and not only at regularly scheduled elections.

Indirect or Representative Democracy. Indirect democracy is the kind of democracy with which all Britishers and Americans are completely familiar. With indirect or representative democracy voters choose individuals to run the government on their behalf. Beginning at about age six British and American children begin electing representatives to their schools' student governments. By the time they are adults these citizens accept without question the concept of indirect democracy.

Representative Assemblies in Britain and the U.S.

Name Length of Term in Office

Upper House

Britain: House of Lords lifetime

U.S.: Senate six years

Lower House

Britain: House of Commons not more than five years

U.S.: House of Representatives two years

What is not clear in the minds of most British and Americans citizens is the precise role of elected representatives, i.e., what are elected representatives supposed to do? Citizens in both countries are often angered when politicians campaigning in elections make promises and then, after they are elected and assume office, offer reasons why they will not keep the promises. Is it the function of a representative simply to do what the voters want them to do or should a representative provide them leadership, i.e., do things that the people do not want the government to do but which, in the opinion of the representative, are good for the people?

In essence, there are two theories of representative--two ways of conceptualizing what representatives are supposed to do. One is called the delegate theory and the other the trustee theory.

The Delegate Theory of Representation. In the delegate theory the job of a representative is to find out what the citizens wish and then to carry-out their wishes. A delegate simply serves as an agent for his master--he receives instructions and then carries-out those instructions. For example, delegates to the General Assembly of the United Nations cast the vote of their countries at General Assembly sessions but the delegates do not decide how to cast the votes. Instead, each delegate is instructed by his government on how to cast the country's vote. Delegates obey the orders of the people who send them.

For example, under the delegate theory the job of a member of the U.S. Congress would be to find out what the people of his district want him to do and then to go to Washington, D.C., and do what they want him to do. Under the delegate theory a congressmen is simply a conveyor belt who brings the demands of his constituents into the halls of government.

The delegate theory reflects the democratic source of political legitimacy where the will of the people is the foundation of government.

The Trustee Theory of Representation. In the trustee theory the representative uses his own best judgment to do what he believes is in the best interest of the citizens--whether or not the citizens agree. A trustee uses his own experience and wisdom to do what is best for the people and the country.

The trustee theory has its roots in the aristocratic source of political legitimacy. Clearly, the best people--the aristocrats--should use their own best judgment to act on behalf of the mass of people. Since ordinary people do not understand complex matters such as law, budgets, and foreign policy, representatives must use their own experience and wisdom in making decisions.

When representatives are elected in competitive elections there is a strong tendency for them to behave as delegates. They know that if they behave too much as trustees they may offend too many voters and therefore may lose the next election. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who serve terms in office of only two years, behave mainly as delegates. They are continually running for re-election and feel obliged to carry-out the voters wishes. Members of the U.S. Senate, who serve six year terms, are more free to behave as trustees. Especially during the first few years of their term senators are more able to use their own judgment because they know that voters have short memories. However, toward the end of their six year terms senators begin to behave more as delegates in order the please the voters. Members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who serve lifetime terms, are completely free to behave as trustees since they never must face the voters in an election. Many local judges in the U.S. are elected and therefore must take more account of the wishes of the voters if they desire to be re-elected.

Elected representatives in Britain and the U.S. face a dilemma. If they behave as delegates and simply obey today's public opinion poll they are condemned by the public for failing to show leadership. But if they take bold, unpopular positions on controversial issues--if they show leadership-- they are condemned by the public for ignoring the will of the people.

In practice, most elected representatives behave as delegates on some issues and as trustees on other. With issues that are highly salient to the voters in their district they behave as delegates because they know they may be defeated in the next election if they don't. With issues that are not relevant to their district the representative is largely free to behave as a trustee.

Elections. The concept of election is a very old one in the Western world and dates back to biblical times some three thousand years ago. The election or selection of certain individuals to rule the government (or to live in heaven) was made by God. God did the electing. The so-called "elect of God" were the people selected by God to do important things and to enjoy God's special favor.

Typically, a group of aristocrats--kings and priests--would claim that God had told them of His electoral decisions and they, in true theocratic tradition, would carry out the divine will. In recent centuries, with the rise of democratic legitimacy, the power of election has shifted from God to the mass of people. Some people in the West still believe that God remains central to the electoral process asserting vox populi, vox dei, the voice of God is heard in the voice of the people.

Types of elections. There are two basic kinds of election: candidate and issue. Candidate elections are an essential part of representative democracy

while issue elections derive from direct democracy.

Candidate elections in Britain and in the U.S. are quite different. In Britain the party organizations choose the candidates and the voters select between the various parties' candidates at a general election. The winner of a general election is elected to office, e.g., becomes a member of parliament.

In the U.S. there are normally two stages in a candidate election. The first stage is a primary election. In a primary election the citizens who are affiliated with a particular party vote to choose the persons who will be the candidates of their party in the general election. Voters who identify themselves as Democrats will choose among the Democrats who are seeking the Democratic Party's nomination and Republicans will vote to choose from among the Republicans seeking the Republican Party's nomination. Citizens who identify themselves as independents, i.e., who have no party affiliation, do not vote in primary elections.

It should be stressed that no one is elected to office in a primary election. Rather, the winners of a primary election face each other as candidates of their respective parties in the general election held later.

Many Americans are quite critical of the absence of primary elections in the British system. It is feared that when parties bosses choose the candidates, rather than the voters, it is the party bosses who will control the candidates after they are elected to office.

Issue elections are rare in Britain and uncommon in most of the states of the United States. The initiative and referendum, discussed above, are two types of issue election where the voters decide matters of policy rather than having elected representatives decide for them.

Parties. Individuals run as candidates in elections and individuals are elected to office. However, a group of individuals pooling their efforts, resources, and connections have a better chance of being elected. In the British context a party is a group of people who wish to win elections and to control governments. In the American context a party is a group of people who wish to win elections.

Parties in Britain, influenced by political trends on the European continent, often claim to represent a particular ideology and can thus be said "to stand" for something. Even so, major British parties never forget that winning elections is important and frequently adjust their ideological principles to suit the current tastes of the voters. Since most voters are moderate or "middle of the road" in their political views, the parties must offer similarly moderate policies if they wish to win.

Of course, most parties have members who are ideological zealots. They believe that ideological purity is sacred and should not be compromised merely to win elections. When zealots take control of a party it usually loses elections and keeps losing until the moderates in the party, those who wish to win elections, regain control.

The left-wing of the Labour Party in Britain kept the party true to its leftist principles through much of the 1980s and lost a series of elections to the Conservative Party which was better able to appeal to moderate voters. In the 1990s the Labour Party jettisoned many of its ideological scruples in hope of winning elections and returning to power.

In the United States the parties have minimal ideological content. This is not readily apparent because most active members of American political parties are inspired by strongly held ideological views. Nevertheless, most party activists realize that other activists and voters with different ideological views must be accommodated inside the party if the party is to have a chance of winning elections.

Party and Government. In the U.S. the sole significant function of a political party is the winning of elections. After the election the victorious party plays a limited role in the operation of the government. Party leaders find it almost impossible to discipline the elected members of their party since it is the voters in the next primary election, not the party leaders, who will decide the names to be on the next general election ballot.

In Britain, and in most of Europe, a party which wins an election takes over control of the parliament and thereby takes control of the institutions of government. The parliamentary whips are party leaders whose job is to ensure that the elected members of the party obey their party leaders in the manner that they cast their votes in parliament. No such discipline exists in the U.S. The president may be of a different party than the party that hold a majority in the houses of the congress. In any event, since the party leadership cannot effectively discipline the members of the party elected to the congress, the parties cannot be said to control the congress--much less the government. To understand this important difference between American and European politics, we must first examine the concept of assembly.

The Assembly Model. Social institutions reflect the ascendant organizational models of their time. Perhaps the extent to which institutions are influenced by ideas and models of organization is not widely appreciated. Each era seems to regard its conceptual models as "common sense" and do not see them as models at all.

Throughout history Western governments have been organized in accordance with the dominant organizational concepts of the time. In the Middle Ages governments were hierarchical organizations held together by ties of kinship or of personal fealty. Knights were vassals of dukes who were vassals of kings some of whom were vassals of emperors.

Over the centuries a new organizational model emerged, the assembly model. Assemblies such as the British parliament gradually took powers away from the royal hierarchies.

Assemblies--parliaments, legislatures, congresses, conventions--are found in virtually all countries in the late twentieth century. Nearly every country in the world either has a parliament or has had one in recent years.

Yet, strangely, the assembly as a theoretical model is little understood. Indeed, as a form of organization it has not only been ignored during the twentieth century but it has been increasingly scorned.

While presently in theoretical eclipse, the assembly model is a fully articulated organizational model with an honored tradition of scholarship behind it. The assembly model has the following basic elements:

-The members of an assembly are equipotent, that is, none have

a special leadership function. There is a minimum of hierarchy.

The members select officers, e.g., the Speaker, from their own

number for a fixed term. Such officers often surrender their

power to vote and are considered primus inter pares.

-There is overlapping task competence, that is, every member

can perform ALL the tasks of the organization. Every member can

make motions, speak, and vote.

-The organization has a non-specific structure. It can form

itself into a committee of the whole, break-up into standing or

ad hoc committees, or sit as a court. There is no necessary

limit to the size of the group nor are there exclusive channels

of communication between members of the group.

-The organization functions by way of directive correlation

whereby individuals working independently or in groups support

and facilitate the work of others toward the

achievement of a joint aim.

Assemblies are underpinned by the democratic ethic of the French Revolution, that is, political legitimacy arises from the will of the people. The legitimacy of an assembly derives from the manner in which it is constituted--not from what it does or accomplishes. If an assembly is regarded as fairly and freely constituted, then what it does (or does not do) is valid. It should be noted that assemblies are not justified on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness -- the twin gods of modern bureaucratic organizations.

There is a growing recognition that assemblies are poorly understood as organizations. Nelson Polsby, America's leading student of legislatures, declares, "Legislatures are badly understood as organizations because they are atypical as organizations in the flatness of their authority structure and in the internal legitimacy which they confer upon conflict, bargaining and coalition building."

Bureaucracy v. Assembly. Many people in the late twentieth century, in the grip of the bureaucratic model, see assemblies as pathetic creatures which should not be called organizations at all. An assembly is a mere "debating society," a "talk shop." Worse still, it is seen as a facade behind which the "real" organization of government operates. The "real" organization that really governs is usually a party--a bureaucratic organization with a hierarchy and a clear chain of command. Eighteenth century theorists of the assembly model saw parties as a threat to the egalitarian, equipotential, non-hierarchical nature of an assembly. They were correct. The "spirit of faction" was viewed as a grave threat by the authors of the U.S. Constitution--a document that condemns parties by failing to so much as mention them. When a bureaucratic organization such as a European-style political party takes control of an assembly it ceases to function as an assembly. Rather, it becomes merely an appendage to the party and serves only to legitimize the authoritative decisions of the party.

In most European countries the party has become the essential instrument of government. Disciplined and hierarchical, parties have reduced parliaments to mere arenas in which party organizations either struggle for control (Western Europe) or assert their control (as in Soviet-era Eastern Europe). Parties in the United States are commonly derided by Europeans because of their lack of discipline and hierarchy. From the perspective of the bureaucratic model American parties are themselves fractious assemblies--they are not "real" parties at all.

There is much data that bears-out the conclusion that national assemblies have been reduced to subservience by bureaucracies. In France some 87 per cent of legislation that ultimately becomes law originates in the executive bureaucracy. For Britain the figure is 82 per cent and 78 per cent for West Germany. Amendments to bills submitted by backbenchers (elected members of parliament who are not part of the cabinet) in Britain stand less than a 5 per cent chance of adoption; amendments proposed by government ministers have nearly a 100 per cent chance of adoption.

The "will of the people," as expressed through elections, is the predominant source of political legitimacy of our era. Yet, worldwide, assemblies are held in low public esteem. For decades opinion surveys in the United States have shown Congress to be held in low public regard -- below the Presidency and the Courts; even below the civil service. In countries with strong party systems, as in Western Europe, the individual member of parliament is seen as a mere soldier carrying-out the orders of his party leaders. In one-party countries legislative bodies are the objects of boundless cynicism.

Assemblies are not respected in a world imbued with the bureaucratic virtues of efficiency and effectiveness. Virtually all modern social entities--including corporations, schools, and churches--have adopted the bureaucratic model. It is little wonder that assemblies are viewed as motorless hulks that must be pushed, pulled, or otherwise guided by "real" organizations.

On the other hand, a bureaucratic dictatorship accountable only to itself would be absolutist and undemocratic. In an age of democratic legitimacy assemblies are needed to control bureaucracies and to provide political legitimacy (law abiding behavior, a willingness to be taxed or conscripted, etc.).

Since the early 1980s the bureaucratic model has been aggressively attacked by a growing number of organization theorists. It has been condemned as mechanistic, as static, as unable to cope with dynamic organizational environments, as suitable only to manufacturing enterprises which utilize unskilled labor, and as blind to the pervasive role of politics. Nevertheless, it remains the dominant model of organization and has all but eclipsed the assembly model in Europe where bureaucratically-organized parties have reduced parliaments to mere rubber stamps.

In the U.S. the assembly model remains alive. Elected representatives, if they behave as delegates, are expected to take their instructions directly from the voters and not from party bosses. If they behave as trustees they are expected to use their own judgment and not to take orders from their party's leaders. In a fundamental sense there are as many political parties in the U.S. congress as there are members of that body. What Europeans see as confusion and chaos Americans see as the normal working of an assembly.

In summary, parties in Britain and in the U.S. are very different. In Britain parties are strongly disciplined and hierarchical. Each stands for a reasonably clear set of principles. Parties contest elections and, if victorious, control governments afterwards. In the U.S. parties exercise little discipline over the members and there is little in the way of hierarchy. Because their main purpose is the winning of elections, American parties often welcome into their ranks people who hold different or conflicting principles. American parties are marriages of convenience between people with the common goal of getting themselves elected. After elections American parties play virtually no role in the operation of the institutions of government.

Conclusion. The governments of Britain and the U.S. are quite different. The British government is a unitary monarchy with strongly disciplined political parties and few formal constitutional restraints on its powers. The U.S. government is a federal republic with weak political parties and many constitutional restraints on the powers of the central government. There are some similarities between British and American government. Both claim the will of the people as the source of political legitimacy and both use indirect (representative) democracy as the means for the people to express their will. However, the British system tends more toward the trustee concept of representation and the U.S. system tends more toward the delegate concept of representation. There are very few mechanisms for direct democracy in the British system. In the U.S. political system, at the state and local level, direct democratic techniques such as initiatives, referenda, and recall elections are increasingly used.

Some people in Britain and in the U.S. arrogantly believe that their respective forms of government are the best in the world. Can they both be correct? The fact that the British and American political systems are so radically different in form and yet are seen as strongly legitimate by the citizens of each country leads us to one conclusion. All countries can evolve their own legitimate, democratic political systems in keeping with their own traditions and culture. The evolution of a political system can be made smoother if people take the time to compare other political systems with their own.

(Copyright 2000)