How convincing and appealing is Schumpeter's theory of democracy?

Résumé du document

Joseph Schumpeter is an American economist and political scientist from the first part of the 20th C, well-known for his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy written in 1942 during the Second World War. In this eminent work, Schumpeter has elaborated a New Theory of Democracy, much influenced by Max Weber, which appears to be an alternative to the “Classical Theory of Democracy” imagined principally by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract published in 1762 (Held: 181).

In the contrary of the latter, Schumpeter denies the existence of a “common good” or a “will of the people” (volonté générale) in democracy. He therefore is not partial with any enlarged political participation in politics neither he was with the case of deliberative democracy. He sought to create a model of democracy which would be “much truer to life” than any other political regime (Schumpeter in Held: 178); namely an elitist model based both on political representation and competition for leadership among leaders. Schumpeter's work has been much influential in the post-1945 years' in the Cold War context of the ideological struggle between Capitalism and Socialism. The author does make a case of this opposition in his argumentation for his New Theory of Democracy by criticizing both ideologies. As a matter of fact he argues that Capitalism system is vowed to collapse from the inside because of its economic success which will question its sociological and cultural basis.

However, even though he does recognize the triumph of Socialism; he is at odds with Karl Marx on the reasons for this triumph (Schumpeter: 62 and O'Toole: 469). Nonetheless, Schumpeter's New Theory of Democracy has raised much criticism and praises among scholars and is widely seen as a milestone in the approach and study of issues in democratic theory. Therefore, one may wonder how convincing and appealing Schumpeter's theory of democracy is.

Extraits

[...] Furthermore, the idea that power must be concentrated into very few hands may appear unattractive and does appear to a certain extent undemocratic. Indeed by relegating citizens to the simple status of occasional voters both because they are irrational agents influenced by their surroundings; and because they are naturally incapable of any political involvement do challenge the Utilitarian view of political participation. As a consequence John Stuart Mill advocated for a greater participation of citizens in politics. He argued that citizens have a role to play since they have the duty to use their intellectual abilities to get involve into the political debate and so struggle against the threat of despotism (Bachrach: 4). [...]

[...] In short there is no one better place than them to make the “most agreeable to, or least disagreeable” decisions for the population (McPherson quoted in Held: 179). Moreover, those rulers are people who have natural leadership qualities and have been detected and trained to become even more efficient and reliable as future politicians. However it cannot be denied that Schumpeter appears very narrow-minded on some issues. For instance he seems to have slight belief in the logical ability of voters to get involved in politics (Held; 180). [...]

[...] To this point, it is interesting to note that Schumpeter's criticisms towards this “Common Good” must be put into perspective. Indeed, by criticizing the foundations of the “Classical Theory of Democracy” and advocating for his new theory; he is himself proving the existence of a common good by trying to impose to people his system as the only viable and realistic, namely for people's common good. Nevertheless, he adds that even though there could be a sort of “common good” shared by all such as economic prosperity, people would never agree on the means to achieve that common goal and so will never be able to fulfil the criteria of the “Classical Doctrine of Democracy” (Schumpeter: 252). [...]

[...] Hence Schumpeter seems to be right by thinking that voters are easily biased in their judgement and so can hardly think rationally; which does pose a threat to the fate of democracy due to citizens' incapacity to vote rationally. As a result, Schumpeter's New Theory of Democracy is based upon an elitist model of Representative Democracy. Since the human nature of the population can be easily biased and so endanger the democratic process itself; he argues that people's role in politics must be reduced to voting at the end of political mandates to renew or not their confidence to politicians. [...]

[...] (1977) Schumpeter's “Democracy”: A Critical View; University of California: University Press, Vol pp 444 to 462. [...]