3

CHAPTER 1 American Democracy and its Characteristics

Section 1: Origins of Democracy

The beginning of democracy can be credited to the Greeks in

the sixth century B.C. The word comes from two Greek words: demos
which means people and kratos refers to state. These two words
are joined together to form democracy which means rule by/of the
people.
Democracy in Greece was first introduced in Athens in 505
B.C by Cleisthenes. Previous to democracy, Greek-city states were
ruled by an elite, few rich men known as tyrants. Democracy was a
government structured to serve the people. All white male citizens had
the right to vote under a democratic system. The first changes towards
democracy in Greece were started around by Archon Solon in 594
B.C. He passed laws that not only protected Athenians from being
enslaved or arrested for debt, but also gave them more rights. He
divided the population of Athens into four political groups based on
agricultural output. He created the council of 400 that consisted of 100
members of each political class. The purpose of this group was to
screen business. This council allowed the public to play a more active
role in government. Solon was one of the founding fathers of
democracy. Many of his reforms did not last for long, as Athens soon
reverted to a tyrannical government. After his death in 559 B.C., the
economic, social
influenced

and

constitutional reforms he made eventually

democracy in Athens. Solons radical reforms can be

considered as a form of democracy.

In 508 B.C. Cleisthenes gained political power in Athens. From

508 to 502 B.C., he began to develop a series of major reforms leading
to the formation of Athenian democracy. He re-divided the citizens of
Athens into 10 tribes, each sending 50 representatives to the council of
500. Each man had to be at least 30 years old and was chosen by lot.
Each member of the council of 500 served one year term and could
not serve more than twice. The council was allowed to veto any of the
councils proposals and was the only branch of government that could
declare war.

Pericles further developed and stabilized Greek democracy. He

capitalized and expanded upon Cleistheness ideas of democracy, and
was able to gain the support of the population. He expanded the power
of the assembly and led Greece into what is known as the periclean
age. During that period, Athens became a great centre of literature and
art. Besides, Greece became the most powerful and wealthy nation in
the world. This was a period of great artistic and intellectual
development in Athens.

He is reported to have formulated the

following words on the issue of democracy:

Our form of government is called democracy becauseour form
does not imitate the laws of neighbouring states. On the contrary, we
are rather a model to others. Our form of government is called
democracy because its administration is in the hands, not of a few,
but of the whole people. In the settling of private disputes, everyone
is equal before the law. Election to public office is made on the basis
of ability, not on the basis of membership to a particular class. No
man is kept out of public office by the obscurity of his social
standard because of his poverty, as along as he wishes to be at the
service of the state.1

Cf. http://www. Wikepedia.com

As we can see, Ancient Greek democracy was not quite or that

different from present day democracy in the Western world, for
instance.

On the other hand, in his work entitled Politics, Aristotle proposed

to distinguish between several systems of government (6 in all). There
was rule by one person, rule by the few, rule by several or many, and
whether that rule was unjust or just. This gives us the following
combination:
-

Rule by one person. This rule may be just or unjust (two

possibilities)

Rule by the few. This rule may be just or unjust (two)

Rule by several or many. This rule may be just or unjust (two)

He named the unjust system of rule by several people demokratia

(democracy) and the just system of rule by several or many a politeia
(commonly translated as republic, from the Latin res publica, public
thing)2. Aristotles demokratia is closer to what we now call direct
democracy while politeia is closer to a representative one.
Roman civilization produced a democracy quite akin to that of
the Greeks, although Rome sometimes granted citizenship to men of
non-Roman descent. The Roman republic ended in the despotism of
the empire. The Roman Republic had elections but again women,
slaves, and the large foreign population were excluded. The votes of
the wealthy were given more weight and almost all high officials
come from a few noble families. The Republic was born some time in
the 7th century B.C. The Etruscans or early Italians built city-states
throughout central Italy and ruled Rome for several decades if not
2

Cf. the Algerian expression elbaylek , i.e. public things or public property.

over one century. Two centuries later (around 510 B.C.), the last
Estrucan king was overthrown or deposed. He was sent way by a
group of aristocrats under the command of a certain Lucius Junius
Brutus. Roman troubles, in fact, did not stop. Because the new
constitution was filled with flaws and therefore was criticable, there
remained powerful enemies. On the one hand, the feuding of the
leading families threatened the state, coupled with the struggle
between these ruling families and the rest of the population, especially
the plebeians, on the other. After long conflicts, the plebs forced the
senate to pass a written series of laws which recognized certain rights
and gave the plebs their own representatives, called the tribunes.
Soon, these plebs got the right to stand for the position of consul as
well as for other important offices of the state.
During the Renaissance beginning in central Italy, notably in
Florence, around the last decades of the 14th century. Many classical
things were revived and refined, among them the study of languages,
Latin and Greek by the middle of the 15th century, as well as science,
philosophy, and literature of Latin and Greek classical eras. This
"revival" was based on interpretations of Roman and Greek texts.
Besides, the humanist philosophers of the Renaissance period looked
for secular principles on which society could be organized, as opposed
to the concentration of political power in the hands of the Church.
Before the Renaissance, religion was the dominant force in state
politics for centuries. Thus, they looked back at Ancient Greece and
found the concept of democracy. Little by little, this Greek concept
began to be accepted in what is now called the Western world. Thus,
the first to start practising this idea of democracy where the city-states
of Italy, and the free German and Flemish cities. They would carry on

the democratic tradition and apply some principles of democracy

during the Middle Ages.
In that period, several systems involving elections or
assemblies existed, but more often than not involving only a minority
of the population, such as the election of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, certain medieval Italian city-states, the tuatha system
in early medieval Ireland, or the Veche in Slavic countries. The result
was, then, the rebirth of a spirit of freedom based on the ancient
Greek and roman principles. Concepts of equal political and social
rights were further defined gradually during the renaissance, when the
development of humanism was forested, and later during the
reformation, in the long fight for religious freedom.
Democracy in Europe later developed with Cromwells well
known rebellion against the English monarch in 1642, which led to
the execution of king Charles I. From then on, political and
revolutionary action against autocratic European government would
lead to the gradual but continuous establishment of democratic
governments. Moreover, these actions were often inspired and guided
by political philosophers, namely the French thinkers Montesquieu
and Rousseau, followed later by the American statesmen Jefferson and
Madison. By the end of the 19th century, the most important western
European monarchies would adopt a constitution limiting the power of
the King/Queen and giving a considerable share of political power to
their population.

The two earliest systems used were the Victorian method and
the South Australian method. Both were introduced in 1856 to voters

in Victoria and South Australia. The Victorian method involved voters

crossing out all the candidates whom they did not approve of. The
South Australian method, which is more similar to what most
democracies use today, had voters mark a tick in the chosen
candidate's corresponding box. Besides, the Victorian voting system
was not that fully secret, as it was traceable by a particular number.

Political parties in Europe began competing for votes while

political rights were gradually extended to several social classes. Now,
one need not be wealty to vote. All forms of priviledges or
discriminations were eliminated: property, sex, race and similar
requirements for voting. By 1850-1860, the secret ballot was
introduced for the first time in Australia; 1872 in Britain, and 1892 in
the USA. The notion of a privacy of the votes (or secret ballot) is now
taken for granted by most states simply because it is considered the
norm. Soon, political systems based on multi-patriotism began to
flourish in Western Europe (notably France, G-Britain, Germany).
Frances first political parties were known and admitted in the
democratic game sometime in the 19th century. Likewise, British
poltical parties also actived by that time.
The end of the World War I could be seen as a temporary
victory for European democracy, as it was preserved in France and
temporarily extended to Germany. Prior to that and by 1906, full
modern democratic rights, universal suffrage for all citizens had been
already implemented constitutionally in Scandinavia, precsiely in
Finland as well as an proportional representation system. Likewise,
the Revolution that took place in Russia in February 1917 inaugurated
a few months of liberal democracy under Alexander Kerensky until

Lenin seized power that same year in October. The enormous

economic impact of the Great Depression put pressure on democratic
forces in many countries. Thus, the following years (1930s) became a
decade of dictators in Europe and elsewhere in Latin America (Brazil,
Argentina, etc.).
Then, World War II came and was ultimately a victory for
democracy in Western Europe, where representative governments
were established that reflected the general will of their citizens. But,
several countries in Central and Eastern Europe became undemocratic
because of the Soviet influence that made them satellite states.
Elsewhere in Southern Europe, a number of right-wing authoritarian
dictatorships, Spain and Portugal continued to exist. In Asia, Japan
had moved towards democracy during the Taish era during the
1920s, but it was under military rule in the years before and during
World War II. This country adopted a new constitution during the
postwar occupation, with the first elections in 1946. Moreover, World
War II also brought seeds of freedom outside Europe and Japan, as it
weakened all the colonial powers and strengthened anticolonial
feeling throughout the globe. Several colonies or possessions were
promised subsequent independence in exchange for their support (case
of Algeria with France, for instance) during the war. India became a
democratic republic in 1950 upon achieving independence from
Britain. This process of decolonization created much political
upheaval here and there, with some countries experiencing often rapid
changes to democratic forms of government or from democratic forms
of government to other types. New waves of democracy swept across
Europe in the 1970s and late 1980s. Much of Eastern Europe, Latin
America, East and Southeast Asia, and several Arab, central Asian

10

and African states moved gradually towards greater liberal democracy

fairly recently (1990s-2000s).
By the middle of the 20th century, most independent countries
in the world had a government that in form or in practice embodied
some of the principles of democracy. Thus, democracy is more than a
set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a
government functions. In a democracy, government is only one
element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions,
political parties, organizations and associations. The major features of
modern democracy include individual freedom, which entitle citizens
to the liberty and responsibility of shaping their own careers and
conducting their own affairs; equality before the law and universal
suffrage and education.
A study by Freedom House3 shows that if that no single liberal
democracy with universal suffrage in the world existed in 1900, by
2000 120 of the total 192 nations that compose the U.N.O were
democracies or could be called so. In fact, British democracy may be
said to be possibly the greatest influence on the organization of world
democracies. The French revolution also played a powerful role, while
the success of democratic institutions in America also became a model
for many nations in the world.

http://www.http:// freedomhouse-org/press/000033.html

11

Section 2: Types of Democracy

Liberal democracy is a plotical system out may derive certain
types of democracy like direct or in direct (i.e. representaive),
deliberative, anticipatory, etc. Here are some of the types of
democracy.
2.1. Direct Vs Indirect Democracy

Democracy may be variably defined and interpreted. That is

why not all democratic or so-called democratic are the same or have
the same, identical political system. France, for instance is different
from the USA, and Great Britain from either of them. If A. Lincoln
(1809-1865) saw it simply as a form of Government of the people, by
the people, for the people, he was in fact expressing what the
Enlightenment philosophers had said before him. The latter came up
with the idea of the separation of powers (Montesquieu, for instance),
the basic civil rights (Locke/Rousseau) and the separation of Church
and state, one of the key revolutionary achievements of the time.

Democracy, then, has two main epochs: the classical and the
modern. In classical terms, it refers to Roman democracy and Greek
democracy. In modern terms, it now came to mean a form of
government or state where a written (in general) document called a
constitution establishes a kind of social contract (cf. Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau) guarantees (via the state, of course, as guarantor) basic
individual civil and political rights, fair elections and competitions,
and an independent judicial system).

12

Direct democracy is a phrase used about a political system

where it is the citizens who decide about most important matters or
issues by voting.
Direct democracy may be ideal or utopian because it is very difficult
for any state to allow their growing populations (several million,
hundreds of million in some cases) to decide directly. Historically,
only Athens

truly experienced

direct democracy. But then its

population hardly reached a few thousand since the non-voters were

not Athenian citizens but slaves and therefore had no political rights.

In the indirect democracy or system of government (also called

representative democracy), citizens choose their representatives at
regular periods or intervals (3, 4, 5 years for example, or let us say, a
mandate). Then, it is these representatives who have the duty or
burden to decide the issues, debate on national or international,
economic or political matters on the behalf of their electorate (the
voters). However, and because indirect democracy may appear less
democratic than the direct one (cf. Athenian model at the time of
Pericles), modern leaders often resort to referenda when wishing to
consult their people directly. And although they may appear the same,
not all so-called representative democracies are identical. Some
modern states like Switzerland for instance make frequent use of
referenda, just as possibilities for the people to initiate referenda are
made available to the people by means of petition. In indirect
democracy, the government allows when and whether a referendum is
needed. This is usually called a plebiscite. By contrast, Germany, for
example, is closer to an ideal representative system because referenda
are not allowed, may be because of the Hitler episode when he used to
manipulate mass plebiscites for his rule.

13

Some ex-socialist countries had a form of representative

democracy since the populations voted for their local representatives
in the national assemblies who in turn elected their rulers. In practice
or reality, these systems were not democratic at all but only
apparently, for their representatives were chosen by the party, the only
party in power in fact.

In fact, any governmental system, no matter what the name of

its system may be called,

can be seen as good or viable if its

population is happy with it. For instance, Hitler was democratically

elected Chancellor, and yet he was a tyrant. Elsewhere, somebody
might seize power by force (which is undemocratic) but bring
happiness to his people. Thus, a democracy is said to be trustworthy or
valid enough only when true alternatives are offered to the people
through elections. The voters must indeed trust the game and
believe in the outcome. What is at stake is human dignity and the
image it gives of man and woman and their place in that society. Some
thinkers have argued extensively that only good or developed
Christian societies are truly democratic or have been exclusively so4.
Throughout the Enlightenment period up to the twentieth century, one
could observe that only a handful of countries- who happened to be
Christian, indeed- have followed a democratic path. G-Britain, France,
USA, Germany, to be but a few, are always cited as paradigms of
democracy in the Western world if not in the world at large.

Richard A. Posner, Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy, 2003, pp. 76-80.

14

2.2. Anticipatory Democracy

Anticipatory democracy5 is another kind of democracy relying

on democratic decision making that takes into account foecasts or
predictions of events to come and which may have some credibility
with the electorate. The phrase was coined by Alvin Toffler.
Other advocates of the anticipatory approach include N.Gingrich, H.
Toffler, and others. They all advocate approaches where the public,
too, ( and not just experts), participate in this "anticipation". In order
to sdo so, prediction markets and other risk management techniques
may be embedded into bureaucracies and agencies to overcome the
groupthink inherent in such bodies, which makes it quite difficult for
them to anticipate uncomfortable future events. Regional democracy
can also appear as a variant of anticipatory democracy in that it
anticipates the ecological health outcomes of any given action.
On the other hand, deliberative democracy, may combine with either
the anticipatory or the bioregional model. It relies less on formal
models and a market system for betting on future events, and more on
discussion.
Deliberative, anticipatory and regional approaches can all be
considered variants of participatory democracy with different
thresholds of ease of participation, burden of proof, concern for nonhuman life or future generations, and reflection of participants'
5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_democracy

15

tolerances versus preferences or ideals of truth. Sometimes a

deliberative model is described as more "left" and an anticipatory
model as more "right". Those who wish to avoid this debate and see
merits to both approaches, e.g. Greens, usually prefer the generic term
"participatory democracy." This term has become fundamental to
green politics itself.

16

2.3. Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy6 is a term used by some political

theorists, to refer to any system of political decisions based on some
tradeoff of consensus decision making and representative democracy.
In contrast to the traditional theory of democracy, which emphasizes
voting as the central institution in democracy, deliberative democracy
theorists argue that legitimate lawmaking can only arise from the
public deliberation of the citizenry. The term "deliberative
democracy" was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette, in 1980. He
later elaborated and defended the notion in 1994. Other contributers to
the notion of deliberative democracy are: Jon Elster, Jrgen
Habermas, Joshua Cohen, John Rawls, etc.
Most of them agreed and outlined some conditions which they
thought constitute the root principles of the theory of deliberative
democracy . 4 main aspects of deliberative democracy appear and
they are:
-The citizens in a democratic state structure their institutions such that
deliberation is the deciding factor in their creation and that they allow
deliberation to continue.
- Commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within
the poltical system.
- The participants in democracy regard deliberative procedure as the
source of legitimacy.
6

It is also sometimes called discursive democrac. In

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

17

- Each member and all members recognize and respect each others'
having deliberative capacity
They claim that deliberative democracy is a theory of
legitimacy. The participants regard themselves as bound solely by the
results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any
authority of prior norms or requirements. They also suppose that they
can act on the decision made, the decision through deliberation is a
sufficient reason for compliance with it. Besides, parties to
deliberation are required to state reasons for proposals, and proposals
are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of
the very deliberation taking place.
Deliberative democracy is usually associated with left-wing
politics and often recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen
participating, those affected or victimized by the process being
undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it
usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized,
isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively document
dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of
actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it
is a complete theory of civics. For example, the Green Party of the
United States refers to its particular proposals for grassroots
democracy and electoral reform by this name.
On the other hand, many practitioners of deliberative
democracy attempt to be as neutral and open-ended as possible,
inviting (or even randomly selecting) people who represent a wide
range of views and providing them with balanced materials to guide
their discussions.

18

2.4. Consensus Democracy

Consensus7 Democracy is the is the application of consensus

decision making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is
characterised by a decision making structure which involves and takes
into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to
systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by votewinning majorities. Consensus democracy also features increased
citizen participation both in determining the political agenda and in
the decision making process itself. Some have pointed to
developments in information and communication technology as
potential facilitators of such systems.
Consensus democracy is most closely embodied in certain
Western countries (Switzerland or Belgium) where consensus is an
important feature of political culture, particularly with the idea of
preventing the domination of one linguistic or cultural group in the
political process. The term consociational state is used in political
science to describe countries with such consensus based political
systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

The Islamic concept of ijma also addresses state decision making by consensus, albeit by
the ulema rather than the population at large.

19

Section 3: The Nature of American Democracy

Some of the Founding Fathers of the USA used the word

democracy and that of republic in a rather similar way to that of
Aristotle. In fact, the term democratic or democracy is now and in
general used to describe institutions, organization, or countries which
permit the members to choose their leaders and decide which form of
government they want. In other words, democracy puts most of the
political power in the hand of the people. John Lockes philosophy
was based on the idea that human being existence lived in a state of
nature8 without organization of government or society. This leads to
the formation of civil society.

English settles in America faced frontier conditions that

emphasized the importance of the individual distinctions and
prejudices. These led to a democratic political structure marked by
high degree of individualism and civil liberty. For a long time,
American democracy was getting better. Precisely because of the very
nature of the newly born American state. Its very existence depended
on the nature of the contract to be bound between it and its citizens.
And how else could it be if not democratic, given the huge spaces to
be won from the Indians and occupied? Thus, we can safely say that it
was the birth of the state and its geography that led the USA to be
democratic. People needed to be free so as to move from place to
place, speak up their minds, do business freely, etc. This was vital for
the state in the first place!

Cf. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, 1690. This idea is also shared by Thomas
Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651).

20

Thus, it became straight forward a form of government in

which the policy decisions of the government are based on the freely
given consent of the people and the people are guaranteed certain
basic freedom9. Freedom in general recognized by democratic
governments include: freedom of the press, freedom of the religion
and freedom to work and live. In the United States many of these
freedoms are outlined in the bill of rights.

Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracies are the same. Their

views and goals as presidents are the same. Both are in favors of the
common man and feel that it is the common people who should have
the biggest influence on government, not the wealthy aristocrats. They
also support states rights and feel that the federal government should
not get involved with the state affairs.

Thomas Jefferson was a strong supporter and spokesman for

the common man and self-government. He strongly believed that the
purpose of American government is to look and supporter of the bill
of rights, which protected the rights of the people. He felt that state
rights are very important and that the federal government should only
intervene with foreign affairs. He felt that American state should
govern their own affairs for the most part.

Andrew Jackson was undoubtedly a man of the people. He was

the first president to be chosen by the people and his background was
not that of a typical president. He favored a general public rather than
the wealthy. Jackson in many ways supported states rights.

http://pr.wikipedia.org.quote.htm

21

Both Jefferson and Jackson shared identical views on minorities.

Both men supported the idea of moving Native Americans from their
homo, taking their lands and moving them to a different part of the
country. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, President Jefferson
suggested that tracts of land in this vast new territory could be given
to native peoples if they agreed to give up their land in the eastern part
of the country.
Among those who played a crucial role in the founding of
American democracy are Jefferson and Lincoln. Jefferson came with
the idea of equality in his contribution the Declaration of
Independence: all men are created equal."

Later, A. Lincoln

expanded or developed it when he declared that all people are created

with equal rights.10
For the Americans of the time, the idea of creating all people
with equal rights and making equal rights part of every person's nature
had to occur first in the mind of the Creator11. Therefore, if all
persons are created with equal rights, it was God's idea to be just with
them in the sense of judging them as equal beings. In fact, some see
God as the actual author of the most basic principle of the democratic
political philosophy12. In other words, democracy itself is seen as
God's idea. On this matter, we may perhaps consider this idea a basic
doctrine of American democratic political philosophy. Developing his
idea, he goes on to write that all mankind or all nations will soon be

10

Cf . his speech on July 17, 1858.

11

http://www.favorite.jefferosn.quotes.htm

12

Ibid.

22

rapidly approaching that particular phase of human history

envisioned by Jefferson and Lincoln13.
In fact, Jefferson's efforts would have a lasting international
impact. The people of every nation were made aware that selfgovernment was on the march. Lincoln's efforts, as he knew, would
also have a lasting international impact. The people of every country
were made aware that equal rights for all was the only sound basis for
self-government.
Jefferson said "Rivers of blood and years of desolation must
first pass over," before democracy could prevail everywhere. All of
the non-democratic powers and structures had to be toppled. The
wolves had to be driven into the same pens where formerly the sheep
were held. Wolves do not go quietly into captivity. Such has been the
history of the world all during the last several hundred years.
While Jefferson believed in the general concept of equality, it is
by no means certain that he believed in the specific doctrine that all
are entitled to equal rights. All during his life he owned several
hundred slaves. He could not hold them in bondage and at the same
time say he believed that all are entitled to equal rights. He never did
say that. What he did say is that "all men are created equal," and they
are "endowed with certain unalienable rights." But he did not say we
are all endowed with equal rights- only "certain" rights.
It was Jefferson, then, who set the worldwide dimensions for
the democratic world movement. But prior to Lincoln's time the
democratic world movement lacked agreed basic doctrines; doctrines
13

Ibid.

23

to serve as the foundation of democratic society and democratic social

structures. How could the USA claim to be democratic when millions
of its citizens were slaves?
When Lincoln proposed his principle of equal rights, it meant
the end of slavery once and for all. The South then knew it meant, and
prepared for war. The outcome of the Norths victory had one
important effect; that the principle of equal rights overcame the
principle of that of injustice. When Lincoln said "we" in "we are all
equal in our rights," he was probably thinking about every human
being in the world. There is yet another important dimension to
Jefferson's principle: it concerns every human being who would ever
live in this world then and in the future. Thus he committed the
democratic movement to comprise the entire human race for the time
to come. Jeffersons "all men are created equal" presupposes the
existence of the Creator (God). Jefferson did not invent the principle
of equality. What he did perhaps indirectly, was to point out that God
was the source and author of this principle. This places the democratic
world movement in an extremely strong and unique position.
Before the American Revolution the history of the world was
largely the history of the wars and struggles waged by non-democratic
powers against each other. But the American Revolution changed all
that. After the American Revolution the history of the world has
largely been the history of the wars and struggles of democracy
against any and all of the various anti-democratic powers. The whole
direction and course of human history was radically changed by
Revolution. This is the view of world history that was held by
Jefferson and Lincoln and it is this view of the relationship of the

24

American Revolution to the development of world history that also

ought to be considered as one of the doctrines of the democratic
political philosophy. Stated succinctly, it was the American
Revolution that began the process of world democratization. However,
if we examine all these ideas critically, we may acclaim the USA as
the champion of democracy in the world. In reality, such is not the
case: it can be rightly dubbed pseudo-democracy from a social and
economic point of view. Let us then discuss this from the socialhistorical or Marxist view.
When the Soviet Union rose to the status of Empire leader
covering the whole of the then USSR

plus Hungary, Poland,

Rumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, etc., it appeared for some as the

champion of

popular democracies instead of bourgeois

democracies, i.e. liberal ones such as USA, Great-Britain., France,

etc. The main idea was to propound an ideology whereby economic
and social equality was the main criterion instead of what the Russians
and their allies attacked as abstract freedom. In other words, for
them liberal democracy and its freedom cannot guarantee social,
economic equality and equal opportunities in general. Thus, they saw
Western democracies as political systems made for the rich and the
powerful only. Or to put it differently, the workers and the poor in
general had no chance to live decently. Only their socialist states
would be able to be equal as the term socialist/communist would
mean. However, neither the liberal system nor the communist one
proved capable of making the dream of equality come true. The
former is incapable, being a truly equal/just state nor of finding jobs
for the unemployed. The latter has proved to a be a police state in the
hands of the Nomenklatura, those elites in power who pay lip-service

25

to the working-class ideological struggle while in fact being another

form of tyranny and dictatorship.

Pragmatism is often said to be peculiarly American; this is usually

said by way of abuse, and has often been a complaint based on the
vulgar idea that pragmatism is the philosophy of utilitarianism and big
business -- this was the charge leveled by Bertrand Russell.
Pragmatism characterizes it as American only in the sense that it is a
distinctively late or post-Hegelianism originating in the United States;
but the affinities of pragmatist social theory with the ideas of Emile
Durkheim, and, more recently, Jurgen Habermas are not difficult to
spot. Pragmatism is "modern" and "North Atlantic" rather than
uniquely "American." Certainly, Dewey drew conclusions about the
peculiar fate of twentieth-century Americans from these more
universal premises, and he was a devout, unreflective believer in
American exceptionalism.
In the 1910s and 1920s, an American version of Russell's
complaint was leveled against Dewey, but this complaint was that
Dewey's pragmatism accepted the bad, capitalist, conformist surface
of American culture and failed to do justice to its livelier and more
oppositional depths. The thought of these cultural critics was that
pragmatism was disabled by its relentless emphasis on practice and
"adjustment" from giving an adequately critical account of its
relationship to the surrounding culture. On that view, pragmatism's
over-emphasis on the "practical" left pragmatists unable to stand back
from their times in order to criticize them as savagely as they

26

demanded. This is a sharper and more interesting criticism than the

misdirected attack on pragmatism as an ideological prop to capitalism.
Dewey offers a philosophical rather than a simply sociological
account of national identity in a culturally pluralist society and try to
say to what that amounts. My second aim is then to raise some
questions about how far Dewey's pragmatism, with its emphasis on
the sociality of thought and individuality, can sustain a loyal but
critical stance toward our "own" society.
The outcome of American social, political, and economic
history was anything but manifest. Most important is that the
fulfillment of the promise was threatened by the nature of the promise
itself. The promise was a promise of individual emancipation, and it
was an egalitarian promise; its aim was to allow each individual to
realize himself or herself in this new and astonishingly open
environment. It thus by-passed questions of identity by assuring
everyone who came to this new nation that he or she could make of
himself or herself whatever the heart desired. But how the American
was to know what to desire or how the promise was to be fulfilled was
another matter.
Dewey, writing on US democracy, once said that
The United States is the outstanding exception to the statement that
democracy arose historically in the interest of an industrial and
commercial class, although it is true that in the formation of the
federal constitution this class reaped much more than its fair share
of the fruits of the revolution. And it is also true that as this group
rose to economic power it appropriated also more and more
political power. But it is simply false that this country, even
politically, is merely a capitalistic democracy. The present struggle
in this country is something more than a protest of a new class,
whether called the proletariat or given any other name, against an
established industrial autocracy. It is a manifestation of the native

27

and enduring spirit of the nation against the destructive

encroachments of forces that are alien to democracy14.

In sum, John Dewey said, the USA is a democracy only in

appearance. It is not truly democratic in the etymological sense of the
word. Nor is it a truly free nation. It is a sort of bourgeois or
capitalistic democracy as he calls it. In other words, it is simply an
established autocracy. That is, power both political and economic is
in the hands of the happy or lucky few. The masses (workers,
etc.) are out of the game. They are there to legitimize the multi-party
system under the beautiful name of democracy or free nation. In
fact, nowhere in the world can we ever speak of a free nation or free
people. We should not confuse between democracy and multi-party
system. I shall try to discuss this difference later on when approaching
the question of the ideal state (chapter4).

14

Larry.A. Hickman & T.M. Alexander, The Essential Dewey,Pragmatism, Education,

Democracy Volume I, 1998, p. 338.