WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS. долговременные бла-га(преимущества) короче говоря, вкратце, итак быть (весьма) далеким от , не достигать

long-term benefits in short to fall (a long way) short in (under) such circumstances to deprive sb of sth a critique of sth electorate to correspond to sth to focus upon sth

долговременные бла-га(преимущества) короче говоря, вкратце, итак быть (весьма) далеким от..., не достигать

при таких обстоятельствах (в таких условиях) лишить/лишать к-л ч-л критика ч-л, в адрес ч-л избиратели соответствовать ч-л помещать в центр, фокусиро­вать внимание

to make pledges to so принимать на себя обязатель-

ства, обещать ч-л -

to be rooted in sth уходить корнями в..., отно-

ситься (по времени) к...

government/democratic overload паралич (перегрузка) государ­ственной/демократической системы

SKIM reading: Work in pairs:look though the text and bring out the topical sentences conveying the main ideas of the text.

TEXT 2: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE: RIVAL VIEWS

Although there continues to be controversy about which is the most desirable form of democracy, much of contemporary debate revolves around how democracy works in practice. There is broad, even worldwide, acceptance of a particular model of democracy, generally termed liberal democracy.

Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount of disagreement about the meaning and significance of liberal democracy. In short, this form of democracy is interpreted in different ways by different theorists. The most important of these interpretations are advanced by: pluralism, elitism, corporatism, the New Right and Marxism.

A. Pluralist view recognises both the existence of diversity or multiplicity in society, and the fact that such multiplicity is desirable. The key feature of such a system of pluralist democracy is that competition between parties at election time, and the ability of interest or pressure groups to articulate their views freely, establishes a reliable link between the government and the governed, and creates a channel of communication between the two. While this may fall a long way short of the ideal of popular self-government, its supporters nevertheless argue that it ensures a sufficient level of accountability and popular responsiveness for it to be regarded as democratic.

However, the relationship between pluralism and democracy may not be a secure one. In other words, the system of rule by multiple minorities may simply have been a device to prevent the majority (the propertyless masses) from exercising political power. A further problem is the danger of what has been called 'pluralist stagnation*. This occurs as organised groups and economic interests become so powerful that they create a log jam, resulting in the problem of government 'overload'. In such circumstances, a pluralist system may simply become ungovernable. Finally, there is a problem, notably that

the unequal ownership of economic resources tends to concentrate political power in the hands of the few and deprive it from the many.

B. Elitist view developed as a critique of egalitarian ideas such as democracy and socialism.

Whereas classical elitists strove to prove that democracy was always a myth, modern elitist theorists have tended to highlight how far particular political systems fall short of the democratic ideal.

Certain elite theorists have nevertheless argued that a measure of democratic accountability is consistent with elite rule. Whereas the power-elite model portrays the elite as a cohesive body, bound together by common or overlapping interests, competitive elitism (sometimes called democratic elitism) highlights the significance of elite rivalry. In other words, the elite, consisting of the leading figures from a number of competing groups and interests, is fractured. The electorate can decide which elite rules, but cannot change the fact that power is always exercised by an elite.

To the extent, the model is accurate, its virtue is that it allows considerable scope for political leadership by placing decision-making in the hands of the best-informed, most-skilled, and most politically committed members of society. On the other hand, although competition for power undoubtedly creates a measure of accountability, competitive elitism must at best be considered a weak form of democracy. Not only can one elite only be removed by replacing it with another, but the role allotted to the general public (that of deciding every few years which elite will rule on its behalf) is likely to engender apathy, lack of interest, and even alienation.

С Corporatist view:The origins of corporatism date back to the attempt in fascist Italy to construct a so-called 'corporate state' by integrating both managers and workers into the processes of government. In the form of neocorporatism, or liberal corporatism, this gave rise to the spectre of 'tripartite government', in which government is conducted through organisations which allow state officials, employers' groups and unions to deal directly with one another.

Most commentators, however, see corporatism as a threat to democracy. In the first place, corporatism only advantages groups that are accorded privileged access to government. 'Insider' groups therefore possess a political voice, while outsider groups are denied one. Secondly, corporatism can work to the benefit of the state rather than major economic interests, in that the peak associations that the government chooses to deal with can be used to exert discipline over

 

their members and to filter out radical demands. Finally, corporatism threatens to subvert the processes of electoral or parliamentary democracy. Policy is made through negotiations between government officials and leaders of powerful economic interests rather than through the deliberations of a representative assembly.

D. New Right view:The emergence of the New Right from the
1970s onwards has generated a very particular critique of democratic
politics. This has focused upon the danger of what has been called
'democratic overload': the paralysis of a political system that is
subject to unrestrained group and electoral pressures. One aspect of
this critique has highlighted the unsavoury face of corporatism. New
Right theorists are keen advocates of the free market, believing that
economies work best when left alone by government.

Government 'overload' can also be seen to be a consequence of the electoral process. Both voters and politicians are held to blame here. Voters are attracted by promises of higher public spending. Politicians, consumed by the desire to win power, attempt to outbid one another by making ever more generous spending pledges to the electorate. The economic consequences of unrestrained democracy are high levels of inflation fuelled by public borrowing, and a tax burden that destroys enterprise and undermines growth.

The New Right theorists therefore tend to see democracy in strictly protective terms, regarding it essentially as a defence against arbitrary government rather than a means of bringing about social transformation.

E. The Marxist view of democratic politics is rooted in class
analysis. In this view, political power cannot be understood narrowly
in terms of electoral rights, or in terms of the ability of groups to
articulate their interests by lobbying and campaigning. Rather, at a
deeper level, political power reflects the distribution of economic
power and, in particular, the unequal ownership of productive wealth.
The Marxist critique of liberal democracy thus focuses upon the
inherent tension between democracy and capitalism, that is, between
the political equality which liberal democracy proclaims and the
social inequality that a capitalist economy inevitably generates.
Liberal democracies are thus seen as 'capitalist' or 'bourgeois'
democracies that are manipulated and controlled by the entrenched
power of a ruling class.

♦ Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of the class.