Outline and Critically Assess Arblaster’s Theory of Democracy
For Anthony Arblaster democracy is still ‘unfinished business’1. Despite the capitalist
victory over the communist Soviet Union in the late twentieth century, the democratic
principles that triumphed over that of the communist regimes are far from perfect. In
Arblaster’s view, many undemocratic anomalies remain in our current conception of what
defines democracy today. Arblaster suggests that in order to overcome these anomalies
democracy must be established on a higher level than simply the right to vote for elected
governments; democracy should also be extended to the distribution of economic power.
On taking a historical perspective, however, it is clear that Britain has come a long way in
the process of democratisation, and it can be argued that Arblaster’s vision for a ‘mass
democracy’2 is over-ambitious and un-achievable. Perhaps, as philosopher Joseph
Schumpeter suggests, democracy can only be realised in the political sphere of
governmental elections.
Arblaster advocates that in order to understand the concept of democracy we have
today we must adopt a historical perspective. To the ancient Greeks, the founders of
direct democracy, the representative political system we have in Britain today would
have been considered an aristocratic method of government. The Athenian policy of
direct democracy endorsed authority wholly in the hands of the masses and power resided
entirely in the council and the assembly. This assembly was ‘the concrete embodiment of
the principle of popular sovereignty’ (p.20), and had the overall say in all policy and
decision-making. As for government and administration, the filling of offices was done
1
Anthony Arblaster, Democracy (Buckingham: Open University Press, 3rd edition, 2002), p.95. All further
references are to this edition and will be given in parentheses to the text.
2
E.H. Carr quoted in Anthony Arblaster, Democracy (Buckingham: Open University Press, 3rd edition,
2002), p.108
, by lot, and chances of a corporate body emerging were minimised by a two year
restriction of service. In comparison to the ‘direct democracy’ (p.59) practiced in ancient
Greece, it is unsurprising that Arblaster advocates that twenty first century Britain is far
from this ideal established by the Athenians.
Arblaster points to many features of the current political system in Britain to
support his belief that as a nation we are a long way from the mass democracy we should
be aspiring to. Despite the progressions made throughout the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries to universal suffrage, many people are still excluded from the vote. Those under
the age of eighteen (albeit this is being lowered to 16) and many people with no fixed
residence are exempt. The first past the post system by which we operate is additionally
hugely undemocratic. No government in Britain has ever been elected with more than
fifty per cent of the overall vote. As Arblaster indicates, there is ‘no single majority party
in British politics’ (p.72). This suggests that the comparable system of proportional
representation is democratically favourable. It has also been debatable as to how much
choice and indeed difference there has been between the main political parties of
Conservative and Labour, with more convergence towards the centre ground of politics.
Such moves since Blair’s New Labour have served to alienate traditional right and left
voters alike who feel that this convergence of politics and policy have consistently failed
to deal with structural issues facing the UK, notably poor productivity and growth, the
highest levels of tax since WWII and a deemed sense of unfairness regarding welfare and
immigration. This disenfranchisement and disillusionment has left a voter void,
contributing to the rise of parties such as the Greens (seeking to capture the hard-left,
with more tax and spend economic policies) and Reform (seeking to capture the right
For Anthony Arblaster democracy is still ‘unfinished business’1. Despite the capitalist
victory over the communist Soviet Union in the late twentieth century, the democratic
principles that triumphed over that of the communist regimes are far from perfect. In
Arblaster’s view, many undemocratic anomalies remain in our current conception of what
defines democracy today. Arblaster suggests that in order to overcome these anomalies
democracy must be established on a higher level than simply the right to vote for elected
governments; democracy should also be extended to the distribution of economic power.
On taking a historical perspective, however, it is clear that Britain has come a long way in
the process of democratisation, and it can be argued that Arblaster’s vision for a ‘mass
democracy’2 is over-ambitious and un-achievable. Perhaps, as philosopher Joseph
Schumpeter suggests, democracy can only be realised in the political sphere of
governmental elections.
Arblaster advocates that in order to understand the concept of democracy we have
today we must adopt a historical perspective. To the ancient Greeks, the founders of
direct democracy, the representative political system we have in Britain today would
have been considered an aristocratic method of government. The Athenian policy of
direct democracy endorsed authority wholly in the hands of the masses and power resided
entirely in the council and the assembly. This assembly was ‘the concrete embodiment of
the principle of popular sovereignty’ (p.20), and had the overall say in all policy and
decision-making. As for government and administration, the filling of offices was done
1
Anthony Arblaster, Democracy (Buckingham: Open University Press, 3rd edition, 2002), p.95. All further
references are to this edition and will be given in parentheses to the text.
2
E.H. Carr quoted in Anthony Arblaster, Democracy (Buckingham: Open University Press, 3rd edition,
2002), p.108
, by lot, and chances of a corporate body emerging were minimised by a two year
restriction of service. In comparison to the ‘direct democracy’ (p.59) practiced in ancient
Greece, it is unsurprising that Arblaster advocates that twenty first century Britain is far
from this ideal established by the Athenians.
Arblaster points to many features of the current political system in Britain to
support his belief that as a nation we are a long way from the mass democracy we should
be aspiring to. Despite the progressions made throughout the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries to universal suffrage, many people are still excluded from the vote. Those under
the age of eighteen (albeit this is being lowered to 16) and many people with no fixed
residence are exempt. The first past the post system by which we operate is additionally
hugely undemocratic. No government in Britain has ever been elected with more than
fifty per cent of the overall vote. As Arblaster indicates, there is ‘no single majority party
in British politics’ (p.72). This suggests that the comparable system of proportional
representation is democratically favourable. It has also been debatable as to how much
choice and indeed difference there has been between the main political parties of
Conservative and Labour, with more convergence towards the centre ground of politics.
Such moves since Blair’s New Labour have served to alienate traditional right and left
voters alike who feel that this convergence of politics and policy have consistently failed
to deal with structural issues facing the UK, notably poor productivity and growth, the
highest levels of tax since WWII and a deemed sense of unfairness regarding welfare and
immigration. This disenfranchisement and disillusionment has left a voter void,
contributing to the rise of parties such as the Greens (seeking to capture the hard-left,
with more tax and spend economic policies) and Reform (seeking to capture the right
