Complexity and Democracy: Pathologies of Modern Governance

36 Pages Posted: 13 Jul 2012 Last revised: 7 Aug 2012

See all articles by Paul Babbitt

Paul Babbitt

Southern Arkansas University

Date Written: 2012

Abstract

Conventionally, democratic theory holds that simplicity is more conducive to democracy than complexity. Rousseau and Montesquieu saw small, homogeneous communities as the only place where democracy was likely to thrive. Empirical studies of democracy complement this idea, presenting a public ill-informed and thus not competent to handle the business of governing. As the world becomes increasingly complex, the capacity of the public to manage with rapidly changing conditions is strained. The only possible form of democracy therefore is some version of elite democracy where the people cede the power of government to one or another of competing elites.

As non-democratic forms of government receded in respectability, elite democracy emerged in contrast to what is unflatteringly called mass democracy, perhaps best articulated at Putney in 1647. Elite democracy gives the people some say in which elites govern. But in so doing, the role of the public is thus reduced to that of a rubber stamp, lacking even real veto power. Thus, elite democracy is hardly to be considered democracy at all, and has more in common with rule of the one or the few, rather than the rule of the many. Even if elite democracy is still considered a form of democracy, its pathologies are different from the pathologies of mass democracy, and have very different origins.

The pathologies of elite democracy have grown acute over the last several decades as elites struggle to cope with increases in complexity and the technical demands of governance. I want to suggest a reverse of this common account. Rather than being unsuited to modern complexity, mass democracy is the only form of government capable of coping with the challenges of complex policy issues. Characteristics of the politically sophisticated, particularly the ability to think in increasingly abstract or theoretical categories, are especially ill-equipped to deal with increasing levels of complexity. In a complex world, “ideological constraint” or dogmatism is especially ill suited to even acknowledge rapidly changing conditions and can be recognized as one of the causes of our current political malaise.

Alas, the kind of democracy that emerges from complexity may not be the kind enamored by democratic theorists. For one, it may be at times wrongheaded and foolish. Second, such democracy will often entail little more than the aggregation of individual or local interests rather than the communal pursuit of some common good. However, a democratic government has greater capacity for self-correction than ideologically constrained experts. Thus, rather than being antagonistic or in tension with one another, democracy is well suited to provide governance under conditions of increasing complexity and interdependence. However, to make appropriate adjustments, it is important to understand the specific elements that are conducive to effective democracy under conditions of complexity.

Suggested Citation

Babbitt, Paul, Complexity and Democracy: Pathologies of Modern Governance (2012). APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2104781

Paul Babbitt (Contact Author)

Southern Arkansas University ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
154
Abstract Views
1,159
Rank
345,247
PlumX Metrics