Is Delegative Democracy Possible?

The article Delegative Democracy by Guillermo O’Donnell discusses the subset of democracies that aren’t quite representative, but are not authoritarian regimes dubbed delegative democracies. O’Donnell explains that these democracies are not consolidated (institutionalized), are not completely representative, yet are not at risk of turning into an authoritarian regime A corner stone acceptance of O’Donnell’s argument is that all of the government systems that could be identified as a delegative democracy, because they meet Robert Dahl’s requirements for polyarchy. I found many of O’Donnell’s points were indicative of an authoritarian regime and seemed to contradict many points of Robert Dahl’s requirements.

The first requirement that I do not think is met by delegative democracies is the ability of institutions to work for citizens based on voter’s preferences. O’Donnell explains that presidents are given a high degree of autonomy in delegative democracies and implies that their agendas are relatively secure and free from intervention by institutions. He also remarks that in delegative democracies, there is high vertical accountability, but relatively no horizontal accountability. This implies a strong imbalance in power between the branches of government and show that the president’s actions are almost completely free from consequence or action by other branches. Even if a president is democratically elected by a majority of the people, it does not mean that he or she will end up working completely for the people. It is highly possible that a president’s own agenda will trump the wishes of the people or that more extreme methods might be used to accomplish the president’s goals. And because the president has so much control over other institutions, the will of the people can ultimately be overridden in all aspects of government by the president’s personal agenda. This renders institutions almost completely useless to the people and closely resembles an authoritarian regime.

The second requirement that I believe is not totally met is freedom of expression. This requirement is very vague, and could technically be met just by offering citizens the right to express their opinions through voting. However, I would argue that freedom of expression includes the ability of the people to express their opinions through speech, organization, etc. O’Donnell makes a troubling remark regarding the expectations for the people after a president has been elected: “voters are supposed to choose, irrespective of their identities and affiliations, the individual who is most fit to take responsibility of the country… after the election, voters/delegators are expected to become a passive, but cheering audience of what the president does.” This caveat insinuates that the people’s freedom of expression begins and ends with voting, and that even their vote is supposed to be independent of their personal motives and beliefs. Abandoning individuality and expecting at least mild support no matter what, is more indicative of a repressive regime than a democratic regime. I believe that the ability to disagree with what the government does and to express dissent in a respectful manner are absolutely vital to free expression I would argue that without this type of expression, citizens don’t really have freedom of expression, regardless of how democratically a president is elected.

I understand that it is technically possible for a delegative democracy to exist, but I’m not sure that it can exist in the same way that O’Donnell explains. For there to be any degree of representation, there needs to be far more accountability between government branches than what O’Donnell cites. Institutions must be stronger, the public must be free to react differently to the government, and there must be increased accountability of political leaders.