How Democratic Is the American Constitution? [Hardcover]

Robert A. Dahl (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0300092180 | ISBN-13: 978-0300092189 | Publication Date: March 1, 2002 | Edition: 2nd

In this provocative work, an American political scientist poses the question, "Why should we uphold our constitution?". The vast majority of Americans venerate the American Constitution and the principles it embodies, but many also worry that the United States has fallen behind other nations on crucial democratic issues, including economic equality, racial integration and women's rights. Robert Dahl explores the vital tension between the Americans' belief in the legitimacy of their constitution and their belief in the principles of democracy. Dahl starts with the assumption that the legitimacy of the American Constitution derives solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance. Dahl demonstrates that, due to the context in which it was conceived, the constitution came to incorporate significant antidemocratic elements. Because the Framers of the Constitution had no relevant example of a democratic political system on which to model the American government, many defining aspects of the political system were implemented as a result of short-sightedness or last-minute compromise. Dahl highlights those elements of the American system that are most unusual and potentially antidemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system. The political system that emerged from the world's first great democratic experiment is unique - no other well-established democracy has copied it. How does the American constitutional system function in comparison to other democratic systems? How could the political system be altered to achieve more democratic ends? To what extent did the Framers of the Constitution build features into the political system that militate against significant democratic reform? Refusing to accept the status of the American Constitution as a sacred text, Dahl challenges America to think critically about the origins of its political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In this slim, accessible volume, Yale political science professor emeritus Dahl (On Democracy) takes a critical look at our Constitution and why we continue to uphold it, though it is "a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, and adopted in only thirteen states." As an instrument for truly democratic government, Dahl argues, it fails. With insufficient models to guide them and a distrust of unfettered democracy, the Framers allowed several "undemocratic elements" in: slavery was accepted and suffrage effectively limited to white men. But Dahl saves his most potent criticism for two provisions that have remained unchanged: the electoral college and the Senate, both of which tie votes to geography rather than population, thereby skewing political power toward coalitions of smaller states whose interests may not necessarily coincide with the nation's as a whole. And as the 2000 presidential election illustrated, the electoral college can frustrate the will of the majority. Perhaps the most enlightening aspect of Dahl's critique is his comparison of our system with those of other stable democracies. In his view, countries with proportional representation which typically results in multi-party states and coalition governments offer a purer form of democratic equality, while our structure frequently supports, for example, policies beneficial to the most powerful lobbyists, rather than the greatest number of citizens. This book originated as a series of lectures at Yale and, as a result, the argument is abbreviated and clear. While Dahl concedes that he has occasionally oversimplified, his intention is not to write a political treatise but to encourage American citizens to change, if not the Constitution, then at least "the way we think about it" and at that, he should have success.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Review

Dahl, the dean of American political scientists, offers . . . a clear-headed dissection of the U.S. constitutional order. -- R.K. Baker, The Times of Trenton

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 208 pages
• Publisher: Yale University Press; 2nd edition (March 1, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0300092180
• ISBN-13: 978-0300092189
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.7 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (40 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #609,676 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

42 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Thought-provoking and bold but still realistic, May 27, 2002

By 

Alexander R. Small (Pomona, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (Hardcover)

Some other reviewers have citicized this book with the non-sequitur that the US is "a republic, not a democracy." A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union."

That said, the question Dahl raises is why no other government in the world is quite like ours. He makes it clear that the Framers had good ideas, but suggests that other nations have improved on the excellent baseline model established by the Framers. That is a very reasonable proposition. Ironically, much of the innovation seen in other nations consists of solutions to problems that our Framers thought they had solved.

The Framers feared "faction", because blind partisanship is clearly a bad thing. Ironically, a failure to foresee and allow for the inevitable formation of parties has only exacerbated the effects of "faction." Dahl addresses the lack of proportional representation (PR), where each party gets seats in (at least one house of) the legislature in proportion to its share of the vote. The lack of PR leads to a two-party system. When you only have two parties, the inevitable result is rancor and polarization. Conversely, multi-party systems require coalitions, compromise, and negotiation. If the formation of parties in inevitable, I'd much prefer a system in which parties compromise and solve problems rather than demonize and obstruct.

Also, Dahl points out that the Founders feared a popularly elected President because (a) they believed no national figure would emerge and (b) they feared that if one did emerge he would be a strong-man. They also rejected a Parliamentary system because they wanted checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. However, the electoral college rapidly evolved into a crude accounting scheme for national campaigns, and Dahl explores the historical background to this evolution. He also points out that we now have Presidents with "mandates." This suggests that maybe our Executive branch is TOO independent.

Finally, Dahl addresses the (sady, unchangeable) malapportionment of the Senate. He points out that revered advocates of limited government (e.g. Madison) opposed equal Senate representation for each state. In fact, Madison accused the small-state representatives of seeking power rather than liberty. Conservatives should be wary of any system that gives a small group huge power. Dahl argues persuasively that protection of minorities should look at ideological or political minorities, not minorities based on which state a person happens to live in. Ultimately, people should be free to organize politically with whomever they agree, and not be forced to organize their interests along artificial lines drawn by governments.

Overall, Dahl does an excellent job of pointing out the areas where our Constitution needs a fine-tuning, and he brilliantly demolishes the political ancestor-worship underlying opposition to his critique.

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars He missses the point, February 19, 2010

By 

Sanford Thier - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (Hardcover)

I think the book is a good one, as far as it goes. But, I think that the author, like virtually every author on the subject, is essentially arguing trivia that has little relevance to the real world. They intellectualize on a subject that our Government does not take seriously

The truth is that what the Constitution says or the form it takes simply has no consequence since the people who run our government simply ignore those provisions it does not like, enforces those provisions that enhance their power, and the Supreme Court can make its words mean anything they want by interpreting it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let me give a few examples.

Example:1 Perhaps the most glaring example is the ruling that money equals speech. This ruling gives Constitutional protection thru the Free Speech Amendment for Corporations and the super rich to bribe any government official they want. Could anything be more obscene than to use the Bill of Rights to permit what would normally be a criminal action. I don't think so. When one adds that to the recent ruling that Corporations are persons under law, there is no hope for the common man to have any reasonable chance to have a seat at the tables when laws are being enacted that are critical to there own well being. Both of those interpretations are so absurd on the face of them that one simply cannot take any intellectual arguments about the Constitution seriously. And while our government scrupulously enforces those rulings, the smply ignore others.

Example:2 You may not know it but our government violates the Constitution on several subjects. The first is tha the Constitution states that our government is to give an accounting for all expenditures. So, why do they have a "Black Budget" that keeps secret tens billions of dollars that are spent on operations that the public doesn't know about. It is a clear violation.

Example;2 In passing Trade Treatise like NAFTA and the WTO, the Constitution requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. That, of course, didn't happen. They were instead put thru an unconstitutional process called "Fast Track" where members of Congress were not allowed to add amendments. This sham was created by denying that these treaties were treaties, by simply calling them "Agreements." One cannot make treaty not a treaty by simply calling it something else. You cannot turn a dog into a act by renaming it. This is an obvious violation of the Constitution.

EXAMPLE:3 the Constitution requires that only the Congress can declare war. That is another provision that is simply ignored. We have been in dozens of wars since WW II and we have never declared war on anyone.

Example:4 GWB created a precedent that allows the President to ignore any law he wants, simply by creating a Signing Statement. He did it dozens of times during his Administration. The way it works is that whenever Congress passes a law and it goes to the President for his signature, he doesn't veto it, he signs it and attaches a Signing Statement that notifies Congress that, even though he is signing the law, he does not intend to obey or enforce it.

Example:5 Finally, the President can simply ignore the Constitution by simply declaring and "Emergency." Most people don't know it, but we have operating in a state of emergency since WW II. That means that every President since Harry Truman, is free to ignore the Constitution whenever he wishes.

The truth is that the Constitution as, interpreted by the Supreme Court, has created a rigged system that has been manipulated to give all power to the moneyed interests and to ignore what the people want. Given the present situation, it seems to me that any intellectual arguments regarding any requirements of the Constitution is simply meaningless.

The book is an interesting read, but it is just an academic exercise. It has no real relevance in the real world.

15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Brief but insightful, August 12, 2002

By 

mrliteral - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (Hardcover)

Dahl's book is actually more of an extended essay on the Constitution and the conflicts it has with modern concepts of democracy. In particular, Dahl focuses on such elements of the Constitution as senate representation and the electoral college, both of which provide representation on a basis other than that of population.

These "flaws" in the Constitution are nothing new. Dahl's more insightful work is where he compares the United States to other, similar democracies and sees how our Constitution compares with theirs.

This is a fast read, but that's as much a result of the brevity of the book as its writing. There are items Dahl could have developed more: in particular, the difficulty of amendment ratification fits perfectly into his book, but he really only mentions it as a stumbling block to Constitutional reform, not as another anti-democratic element of the document.

Despite its flaws, this book succeeds in its chief goal, which is to look at the Constitution in a realistic manner, without the glorification that so many people give it. It may provide more questions than answers, but these are good questions that need to be asked.