RC 1

The case for constituting political authority democratically rested on two basic assumptions: first, that no

person was naturally superior to another, so any relations of authority between them stood in need of

justification – in other words, each person should enjoy equal political rights unless it could be shown that

everyone gained from having inequality; second, that the interests of the people were best safeguarded by

making them the final repository of political authority – anyone entrusted with special powers must be

accountable to the people as a whole. But this still left open exactly what role the people as a whole should

play in government. Should they be directly involved in legislating, as Rousseau argued in his Social

Contract, and if so how? Or should they only be involved at one step removed, by choosing representatives

who would wield authority on their behalf.

In practice those political systems we call democracies give their citizens only a very limited role in

government. They are entitled to vote at periodic elections, they are occasionally consulted through a

referendum when some major constitutional question has to be decided, and they are allowed to form

groups to lobby their representatives on issues that concern them, but that is the extent of their authority.

Real power to determine the future of democratic societies rests in the hands of a remarkably small

number of people – government ministers, civil servants, and to some extent members of parliament or

other legislative assembly – and it is natural to ask why this is so. If democracy is the best way to make

political decisions, why not make it a reality by letting the people themselves decide major questions

directly? One answer that is often given at this point is that it is simply impractical for millions of ordinary

citizens to be involved in making the huge number of decisions that governments have to make today. If

they were to try, not only would government be paralyzed, but they would leave themselves no time to do

all those other things that most people think are more important than politics. But this answer is not

adequate, because it is not difficult to envisage citizens making general policy decisions whose detailed

implementation would then be left to ministers and others. The electronic revolution means that it would

now be quite easy to ask citizens for their views on a wide range of issues ranging from war and peace

through taxation and public expenditure to animal welfare and environmental issues. So why is this done

only on those rare occasions when a referendum is called?

The reason is that there is a widespread belief that ordinary people are simply not competent to understand

the issues that lie behind political decisions, and so they are happy to hand these decisions over to people

they regard as better qualified to deal with them. An uncompromising statement of this point of view can be

found in Joseph Schumpeter's book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1943), where it is argued that

the citizen's job is to choose a team of leaders to represent him or her, not to attempt to decide issues

directly. Schumpeter claims that whereas in economic transactions, for instance, people experience the

results of their decisions directly – if they buy a defective product, they soon discover their mistake – in the

case of political decisions there is no such immediate feedback mechanism

31. Which of the statements given below best supports the view of the author as inferred from the

passage?

(a) The interests of the people are best safeguarded by making them the final repository of political

authority.

(b) Democracy is the best way to make political decisions and this can become a reality only by

letting the people themselves decide major questions directly.

(c) Citizens should make general policy decisions and leave their implementation to ministers and

others.

(d) In practice those political systems we call democracies give their citizens only a very limited

role in government.

32. Why does the author discuss the fact that referendums are rarely called?

1. To underline that such an exercise needs to be justified.

2. To demonstrate that the citizen's job is to choose a team of leaders to represent him and not to

decide issues directly.

3. To explain that the ordinary citizen is disinterested in decision-making.

4. To describe the popular belief that ordinary people are not competent enough to understand

political decision-making.

(a) Only 1 (b) Only 4 (c) Both 2 and 4 (d) Both 3 and 4

33. How does the author conclude that democracies give their citizens only a very limited role in

government?

(a) Citizens are occasionally consulted on issues through a referendum.

(b) Citizens only form groups to lobby their representatives on issues that concern them.

(c) Real power lies in the hands of a small group of government ministers, civil servants and members

of parliament.

(d) All of the above