How Democratic Is the American Constitution?

by Robert A. Dahl

Book Overview

A Washington Post Book World Best Seller

"Robert A. Dahl . . . is about as covered in honors as a scholar can be. . . . He knows what he is talking about. And he thinks that the Constitution has something the matter with it."--Hendrik Hertzberg, New Yorker

"A devastating attack on the undemocratic character of the American Constitution."--Gordon S. Wood, New York Review of Books

In this...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0300095244
• ISBN13: 9780300095241
• Release Date: December 2003
• Publisher: Yale University Press
• Length: 240 Pages
• Weight: 0.47 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.0" x 7.6"

Customer Reviews

No example for the world

Dahl's fine book attacks the American Constitution and system of government for each of the following undemocratic features, most of them totally unique to the US among the world's advanced democracies, and all very rare. ? The Electoral College. ? A bicameral legislature. ? Grotesquely unequal representation in the Senate. ? Judicial review (veto) of acts of the federal legislature, duly signed into law by the President. ? Judicial legislation ("policy making") under cover of enforcement of the Constitution. ? Single member legislative districts with plurality voting (so-called, "first past the post"), contrasted unfavorably with proportional representation and runoff systems. ? The two party system. ? A President with important powers wholly independent of the legislature, contrasted unfavorably with the much more common system of ministerial government responsible to the legislature. ? A strong federal system imposing significant limits on the powers of the general government. This is a short book in which, of course, RD does not say all he knows, or complain of every undemocratic characteristic of our system. For example, he does not complain of these, and so proposes no better alternative - however hopeless. ? Federal judges are appointed rather than elected. ? Federal judges have effective life tenure. ? There is no federal recall. ? There is no federal initiative. ? There is no federal referendum. ? Legislation is unduly influenced, and often even written, by lobbyists in service of moneyed interests (RD does allude to this). ? Tens of millions of America's mentally competent, non-criminal permanent residents lack the franchise. ? Tens of millions of America's people who have the franchise do not vote. (In the words of Sharona Fleming, "It only encourages them.") ? There is no "None of the above" option for voters. ? The means of campaigning are almost wholly within the gift of the rich (RD does allude to this disgraceful fact in one sentence). ? The means of political propaganda in general, from report and comment in the mass media to the productions of "think tanks," are almost wholly within the gift of the rich. ? Holders of high federal office - including judges, legislators, and the President - are nearly all lawyers and nearly all personally members of the wealthiest strata. ? The legislature has only the slightest real impact on foreign policy in general, and not much even on treaties. It has none on the extra-constitutional device of the "executive agreement." ? The requirement of a Congressional declaration of war is not observed and is without effect. ? There is no popular constraint on, or control over, government - and in reality Presidential - war-making power. RD is justly pessimistic about the prospects for democratic change, but says not a word about why. But we know why, don't we? Many, if not all, of the undemocratic features of our system serve to protect the interests of t

"ACTIVIST" JUDGES versus THE "PASSIVE" CONSTITUTION?

This book is a little gem, A CLASSIC worthy of the broadest possible readership, and the widest possible debate. The questions it raises are profound and important; the solutions it suggests are penetrating and sane ... even if, at times, wrong! Dahl is an eminent political scientist, and his aim (mainly) is to show the extent to which the current version of the Constitution is far less democratic than we sometimes imagine. Not only is it NOT the world-wide model for democratic development that we fondly imagine it to be, but newly-democratising countries routinely reject the American model, precisely because of its anti-democratic tendencies. This is clearly not the view we get in our High Schools, where mindless Constitution worship is the order of the day; and where any suggestion that we could learn from the rest of the world is regarded as a malign, domestic strand of Anti-Americanism! Dahl's question never even arises in U.S. History courses where the standard treatment is to regard The Constitution as a Sacred Document akin to The Ten Commandments:The divinely inspired Framers simply bequeath it to a (clueless but) grateful People! That said, however, Dahl's perception of the historical development of the U.S. Constitution is somewhat skewed. For, it is clear even in his own account of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (given here), that the Constitution was NEVER intended to be "democratic". Its aim was, simply, to create an Aristocratic Republic; one which hedged its bets whenever possible on the troublesome question of `popular' input. If you doubt that then simply reflect on the two most undemocratic aspects of the American system: the Presidency (the Electoral College vote trumps the popular vote every time); and the Senate (popularly elected only since the Seventeenth Amendment, 1913). Indeed, the Senate is so profoundly un-democratic that Dahl rightly castigates it as "the graveyard of constitutional amendments" aiming to end the abominable electoral college system (p. 87). And that's just the most obvious of the Senate's failings! The great beauty of Dahl's little book is that even if you disagree with it, you win! It is impossible not to be improved by reading this work! The author writes in an accessible, jargon-free style that draws you in; and the spiders-web of interlocking questions followed by clear and clever analyses will keep you reading to the end. In the midst of our current wrangles about activist judges it is sometimes assumed that the Constitution is a mere passive backdrop. Dahl's work will cure you of that mis-perception, and of the assumption that a critical appreciation of the Constitution necessarily validates judicial review! It doesn't. In a culture dominated by the most mindless kinds of Constitution-worshipping cant, this book stands apart. It is probing and critical without being mean-spirited or irreverent. The questions it raises don't subvert the Constitution, or the Framers; they st

A short course in comparative democracy

I was enthralled by this book the instant I saw it, because it asked hard questions about American democracy that I've never heard from anyone else before. I would summarize this book as a short course in comparative democracies (sort of like comparative religions), discussing the similarities and differences between democracies that work.The main question that Dahl asks is, "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?"Chapter 3 is the most interesting part of this book, where Dahl compares the American constitution to other democratic governments. "[A]mong the countries most comparable to the United States...not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it. Why?" Dahl explores this question with respect to the American bicameral chambers (House and Senate), unequal representation (in the Senate), judicial review, the electoral system, two-party systems, and the presidental system. He discusses how the American system works versus other democracies, comparatively pointing out strengths and weaknesses.Overall I found this a stimulating, well-written, and deep book that looks at fundamental questions about American democracy that few people seem to be asking. Unlike other authors, however, he doesn't do this in a pessimistic manner, criticizing the American system needlessly. It was more of "we've done pretty well all things considered, but we can do better, and we should strive to do better."

Brilliant analysis, clear writing

I heard Prof Dahl present these ideas at Yale last year and was struck both by the clarity of his thought and the elegance with which he presented his analyses. While his Preface to Democratic Theory is more remarkable in its sheer audacity (a bold critique of Madisonian (i.e. American) democracy), these lectures offer a unique insight into two of the strangest aspects of our system. While other reviewers are correct to note that the American system is not, technically, a democracy, Dahl's point is not historical, but prescriptive. Based on the assumption that we should be a democracy (the form of government we promote around the world), Dahl seeks to clarify how we might alter the current Constitution to make our system more democratic. Any criticism of this book that takes issue with Dahl's discussion of how to make America more democratic misses the point. This book is about how to make a functional democracy, and uses as its example the pseudo-democratic American system.

Wondefully Reasoned, Essential Information

I can't imagine that anyone who would berate this book has actually read it. If they had then they would know that the tired old conservative mantra, "America is a republic, not a democracy!" is dealt with carefully and wisely in Appendix A. This book is a wonderfully reasoned discussion of the relevance of the constitution (a point which seems to have been taken for granted in other reviews) and how in relates to democracy in our society. It is, however, only useful information for those accustomed to thinking instead of ranting.