Understanding the "Fabric of Democracy": Citizen Participation

What is the Fabric of Democracy? Is it the people who are a part of that democracy? Or is it the ideal that those people live by? The ability of those people to uphold or decline the right to have their voices heard is what is argued today as being the very fibers that make up the fabric of democracy. With the Election coming we can look back at this year, and analyze the role that citizens have played in the election process. But before analyzing the people, it is best to analyze the theories from which the people are judged. This theory is called the democratic theory, which has two components. The Developmental and Participatory variants of the theory claim that civic participation is helpful, and necessary in government, while the Protective and Pluralist variants of the theory claim the opposite. According to the democratic theory, the reasons that citizen participation is beneficial to government are as follow: the most obvious reason is the fact that wide spread participation ensures that public policy will reflect the good of all and not just the interests of a few. Basically this means that if the government is to represent its people, the people have to have a say in the policies that the government creates, and that every citizen should participate in influencing that policy. "Participation, in other words, is an 'instrument' for getting what one wants from government, those who fail to use the instrument will be ignored" (Hudson, 145). This is aspect of the democratic theory is on the opposite extreme in claiming that citizens who do not partake in participatory rituals do not exist in the eyes of the government. However, it is also taken as a call to action in order to get people involved and get their voices heard by the government so that their needs can be addressed properly. There is another reason that civic participation is beneficial to the health of a government. That reason is that: through all forms of civic engagement the citizenry understands and learns how policies are made and how they can influence that process. By understanding the process citizens can push for legislation that will be for the good of themselves and their fellow citizens. With this power, it is believed, the citizens will exercise the responsibility to influence legislation that will reflect the will of the people. When people get in political campaigns, participate in civic associations, and intelligently vote (do their homework then vote) they will be able to achieve this ideal of being a truly democratic citizenry that has contributed to a healthier government. However, it is hard to accept such a Utopian notion of governance, and that is where the argument starts. How can busy Americans be that involved in policy when only half of the eligible voting population actually comes out to vote for the president and a third show up to vote for midterm congressional elections. However, this lack of participation is not seen as bad by pluralists and protectionists. Within this theory of governance the citizens have little direct say in public policy, and it is the people that they elect to represent them that make those issues known. This is called a representative democracy, which is what we are. According to the plural/protectionist philosophy the lack of participation states that there is nothing wrong with the government and that the people are happy in the way that they are being represented. If to many people participate in government it can give rise to trivial issues that will make it hard for actual elected officials to do their job properly and effectively. Also it is argued that those who do not vote are actually making a bigger statement than those who do (Mueller, pg 40). When we take this into consideration than is a engaged citizenry truly necessary for a working and successful democracy? It is argued that no, a citizenry is not all that necessary for a democracy when there are people who will act on their behalf whether it be a representative or a special interest group. And also another fact that is pulled up to defend this statement is: look at us, we still work. Many college students complain that voting is so simple that there really is no excuse for every patriotic American not to do it. This question can be answered in to ways. First of all the actual election lands on a Tuesday (the worst day of the week for me, you are far enough in to the week to hate it and far enough away from the weekend that it honestly seems that the week will never end), which is on a working day, and the polls all close at six o'clock (honestly how many Americans are going to say "I'm going to vote after work" instead of "I'm going to grab a beer with my boys after work"). Also for people trying to juggle several jobs, it becomes hard to plan even the shortest hiatus from a busy day to go and vote, and also vote intelligently, which requires a lot of commitment to listening to debates and staying well informed. I think that the day in which we vote should be a national holiday, it would give everyone a chance to partake in the activity and truly cut down on the excuses that people give for voting, but that is just me. However, the notion that civic partisanship entails unrest and and the disruption of stability also has some validity. There are really not all that many ways to get everyone involved in participation, unless something drastic happens. The main argument that plural/protectionists use is that "...if some citizens opt not to exercise that right [not to vote], democracy is in no way diminished. As long as the democratic rights to participation are assured" (Hudson, pg 146). Finally it is time to talk about all of this in action. What if everyone really was to get involved? Lets take a look at this past year and the heightened sense of patriotism and civic participation that has resulted from it. People have began to try to get closer to the candidates, volunteered at their campaign offices or spoken out at rallies, and that has not always been a good thing, because their actions reflect on those actually tiring to run for office. In the case of Barack Obama, two muslim girls sat front and center of one his rallies and were visible by the camera. Obama's press secretary had those two girls replaced, which looked bad on Barack Obama. This echoes the notion that too much partisanship by people, Obama's press secretary was probably a volunteer, can become distraction and trivial and in no way helpful to the work that is being tried to get done, in this case the election of Barack Obama. This sort of thing has also happened to John McCain. In one of McCain's rallies people began shouting things like terrorist and lets kill him about Barack Obama, which comes to illistrate the same thing that people can end up distracting elected officials with trivial things. However, we all make up the fabric of democracy, and whether or not we participate in that democracy is up to us, but as long as we have that right I don't care how much we argue.