The Masses in Democratic Society

Democratic theory assumes that liberal values – individual dignity, equality of opportunity, the right of dissent, freedom of speech and press, religious toleration, and due process of law – are best protected by the expansion and growth of mass political participation. Historically, the masses and not elites were considered the guardians of liberty. For example, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the threat of tyranny arose from corrupt monarchies and decadent churches. But in the twentieth century, it has been the masses who have been most susceptible to the appeals of totalitarianism.

It is the irony of democracy in America that elites, not masses, are most committed to democratic values. Despite a superficial commitment to the symbols of democracy, the American people have a surprisingly weak commitment to individual liberty, toleration of diversity, or freedom of expression for those who would challenge the existing order. Social science research reveals that the common man is not attached to the causes of liberty, fraternity, or equality. On the contrary, support for free speech and press, for freedom of dissent, and for equality of opportunity for all is associated with high educational levels, prestigious occupations, and high social status. Authoritarianism is stronger among the working class in America than among the middle and upper classes. Democracy would not survive if it depended upon support for democratic values among the masses in America.

Democratic values have survived because elites, not masses, govern. Elites in American – leaders in government, industry, education, and civic affairs; the well-educated, prestigiously employed, and politically active – with rare exception give greater support to basic democratic values and "rules of the game" than do the masses. And it is because masses in America respond to the ideas and actions of democratically minded elites that liberal values are preserved. In summarizing the findings of social science research regarding mass behavior in American democracy, political scientist Peter Bachrach writes:

 

A widespread public commitment to the fundamental norms underlying the democratic process was regarded by classical democratic theorists as essential to the survival of democracy... today social scientists tend to rejectthis position. They do so not only because of their limited confidence in the commitment of non-elites to freedom, but also because of the growing awareness that non-elites are, in large part, politically activated by elites. The empirical finding that mass behavior is generally in response to the attitudes, proposals and modes of action of political elites gives added support to the position that responsibility for maintaining "the rules of the game" rests not on the shoulders of the people but on those of the elites.

In short, it is the common man, not the elite, who is most likely to be swayed by anti-democratic ideology; and it is the elite, not the common man, who is the chief guardian of democratic values.

Elites must be insulated from the anti-democratic tendencies of the masses if they are to fulfill their role as guardians of liberty and property. Political scientist William Kornhauser explains:

... direct access to elites creates a type of elite that lacks adequate inner resources as well as sufficient protection from external pressures to act with decisiveness and independence... Members of elites in mass society do not feel elite; they feel mass. As a result, elites lack the capacity for strong leadership: they cannot take advantage of opportunities to strengthen democratic order which are provided by those liberal- pluralist tendencies that may exist alongside mass tendencies.

Too much mass influence over elites threatens democratic values. Mass behavior is highly unstable. Usually, established elites can depend upon mass apathy; but, occasionally, mass activism will replace apathy, and this activism will be extremist, unstable, and unpredictable. Mass activism is usually an expression of resentment against the established order, and it usually occurs in times of crisis, when a counter-elite, or demagogue, emerges from the masses to mobilize them against the established elites.

Mass activism tends to be undemocratic and violent because masses do not have a strong commitment to established institutions and procedures. Populist values – nativism, intolerance of nonconformity, anti-intellectualism, religious fundamentalism, and egalitarianism – generally become the impetus of mass movements, which may be either "left" or "right" in their political ideology. America has experienced a long history of such mass movements, led by a wide variety of counter-elites, from Shays’ Rebellion and the Know-Nothings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to McCarthyism, urban riots, and George C. Wallace's American Independent party in the twentieth century. These seemingly divergent movements have several common characteristics – they were supported by the masses, they expressed resentment toward the established order, and they were opposed by established elites.

According to Kornhauser, democratic government, where elites are dangerously accessible to mass influence, can survive only if the masses are absorbed in the problems of everyday life and are involved in primary and secondary groups which distract their attention from mass politics. In other words, the masses are stable when they are absorbed in their work, family, neighborhood, trade union, hobby, church, recreational group, and so on. It is when they become alienated from their home, work, and community – when existing ties to social organizations and institutions become weakened – that mass behavior becomes unstable and dangerous. It is then that the attention and activity of the masses can be captured and directed by the demagogue, or counter-elite. The demagogue can easily mobilize for revolution those elements of the masses who have few ties to the existing social and political order.

These ties to the existing order tend to be weakest during crisis periods, when major social changes are taking place. According to Kornhauser:

... communism and fascism have gained strength in social systems undergoing sudden and extensive changes in the structure of authority and community. Sharp tears in the social fabric caused by widespread unemployment or by major military defeat are highly favourable to mass politics.

While elites are relatively more committed to democratic values than masses, elites may abandon these values in crisis periods. When war or revolution threatens to tear down the existing order, the established elites may move toward the “garrison state”. Dissent will no longer be tolerated, the news media will be censored, free speech will be curtailed, potentional counter-elites will be jailed, and police and security forces will be strengthened. Usually these steps will be taken in the name of national security, or “law and order”. The established democratic elites will take these steps in the belief that they are necessary to preserve liberal democratic values. The irony is, of course, that the elites make society less democratic in order to preserve democracy.

In short, neither elites nor masses in America are totally and irrevocably committed to democratic values. On the whole, however, elites are restrained by their commitments to freedom and individual dignity. This is true for several reasons. In the first place, persons who are successful at the game of democratic politics are more amenable to abiding by the rules of the game than those who are not. Moreover, many elite members have internalized democratic values learned in childhood. Finally, the achievement of high position may bring a sense of responsibility for, and an awareness of, societal values.

 

1. to draw from smb. – собирать, отбирать из кого-л.

2. fundamental norms underlying the social system – базисные, основные нормы, лежащие в основе социального устройства

3. to compete with each other for preeminence – соперничать друг с другом за превосходство

4. the sanctity of private property – неприкосновенность частной собственности

5. to be at odds with smb./smth. – быть несогласным с кем-л./чем-л.; расходиться

во мнениях

6. enlightened self-interest – просвещенный эгоизм

7. to be locked in conflict – быть вовлеченным в конфликт

8. to institute reforms – начинать, вводить реформы

9. moral tenet – моральный принцип

10. inalienable rights – неотъемлемые права

11. external restrictions – внешние ограничения

12. to be consistent with smth. – соответствовать чему-л.

Ant: to be inconsistent with smb.

13. to advance interests – содействовать кому-л. или чьим-л. интересам

14. to bar from power – не допускать к власти

15. to stem from – происходить, являться результатом чего-л.

16. by virtue of smth. (in virtue of smth.) – посредством чего-л.; благодаря чему-л.; в силу чего-л.; на основании чего-л.

17. to abuse power – злоупотреблять властью

18. to stress the fragmentation of power – придавать большое значение, делать акцент на разделение власти

19. bar association – ассоциация адвокатов, коллегия адвокатов

20. to balance out – приводить в равновесие; уравновешивать; уравнивать

21. to be accountable (to, for) – быть обязанным отчитываться, подотчетным, ответственным

22. to be attached to the causes of freedom, fraternity and equality – быть преданным делу свободы, братства и равенства

23. freedom of dissent – свобода взглядов, свобода выражать собственное мнение

24. to be insulated from smth./smb. – быть изолированным, обособленным от чего-л./кого-л.

25. resentment against (towards) the established order – недовольство установленным порядком

26. to be accessible to smb’s influence – поддаваться влиянию кого-л.

27. to be absorbed in the problems of everyday life – быть занятым решением повседневных, будничных проблем

28. to undergo changes – подвергаться изменениям