Schumpeter’s Conception of Democracy

What is Schumpeter’s conception of democracy?

There are several chapters in Joseph Schumpeter`s book that offer a debunking redefinition of democracy, a construction that was initially aimed at preserving domination by the elites in the socialist democracies of the future which were not welcomed. In order to explain Schumpeter’s position, I am first going to exudate his views on the classical doctrine of democracy.

Schumpeter is critical of what he refers to as democracy`s classical doctrine, that through people`s common will, they elect people to represent them aiming at realising some common good. Schumpeter posits that the democratic method is the institutional arrangement put in place whenever arriving at decisions that are of a political nature which is able to realise the common good through giving the people themselves the opportunity of electing individuals who assemble for carrying out their will.

The assumption in the definition is that there exists a known common good that all humans agree on which distinguishes between what is bad and good. Schumpeter is quite critical of this and holds the view that there is neither any common good nor will of the people and whenever there is either common good or will, both are better realised by autocracy. He objects that there exists neither unanimously endorsed will of the people nor common good. The wills of different individuals on political matters are never independent or definite (pg. 6).

The will of individuals is more definite with regard to the choices made by consumers and that is because in a direct way, consumers get to experience their choices consequences. With respect to democratic choice, the will of individuals is indefinite because voters do not get to experience the consequences of the choices they make. In politics, the will of individuals is not independent and this is largely because leaders mostly form it by the personal propaganda they sell and also through the propaganda sold by their parties. Additionally, there is also no existing relationship between the choices voters make and the consequences of those choices (pg. 8).

According to Schumpeter, in the event the wills of individuals were independent and definite, combining them would be impossible because they would be too diverse. Additionally, even if humans were to agree on a common good, there would be no way they could possibly agree on the means. This is because, even if it were to be possible to find the common good, that would still not make clear the means needed to reach it`s end and this is largely because citizens lack the requisite knowledge required for designing government policies. That is what makes the concept of a ‘rule by the people’ undesirable and unlikely. For example, even though we could all desire good health, people would still find it hard to agree on vasectomy and vaccination (pg. 6). Schumpeter argues that the classical doctrine is quite unrealistic and that the superficiality and ignorance individuals display is an indication that politicians manipulate them. Agendas are actually set by politicians.

Schumpeter goes forth to propose his own doctrine of democracy where he says that democracy is only about leaders competing for votes (pg. 9). He paints democracy as simply a method which is in no way valuable by itself. According to this new theory, even though the members of the public periodically vote so as to legitimise governments and also as a means of holding them accountable, the policy program is deemed to be more of their own and not of the people which acts to limit individuals participatory role. It appears that his main rhetorical strategy is to contrast democracies classical doctrine as the people`s will and common good to a modern democracy doctrine as merely competition for leadership. Schumpeter holds the view that those who adopt the classical doctrine tend to come from a utilitarian perspective, which dictates that that which is best for all is the common good, a perspective that denies people the opportunity of expressing their will on common good (pg. 6).

The perspective is observed to make an assumption about the form the will should take. Leaders manufacture people`s will and as such the people`s will is in no way genuine. The leaders manufacture the people`s will and the people accept it, and actually, that is the way it should be because the judgements made by leaders deemed to be superior are normally superior to those made by publics and even the different parliaments. According to Schumpeter, this is an easy way to measure whether the leadership of a country gets to be appointed through elections or not.

Schumpeter`s new theory; 1) establishes a criterion that is clearer for distinguishing democratic governments (pg. 9), 2) in contrast to the classical theory, accounts for the importance of leadership and leaders (pg. 10), 3) clarifies the existing relationship between freedom and democracy; in no way does democracy require or guarantee freedom and each and every individual is free to compete for leadership, all they need to do is present themselves to the electorate (pg. 10), 4) includes the function of evicting the government in the electorates primary function of producing governments (pg. 11), 5) sheds light on the issue that any individual who holds the believe that the democratic method guarantees that the will of the people always has to be followed whenever making decision and policies needs to be aware that the simple majorities decisions would easily distort that (pg. 11)

Reference

• Schumpeter, J. (n.d.). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Pp.6-11.