How Democratic Is the American Constitution?

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

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."

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.

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.