An oncoming Kuhn-ian ‘Revolution’ in the analysis of Democracy

I will illustrate the application of Kuhn’s ideas to the science of society with a sketch of what I see as the puzzles and anomalies in the study of politics and particularly democracy, which I believe are leading to a crisis and transformation of the ideas about politics (the established paradigm – whose emergence we have been studying). I will also offer an effort to define new ones (suggested as elements of a new paradigm.)

The established paradigm is what we have been studying this year. We have been studying the rise of the nation state and the emergence of the institutions of popular sovereignty. We have read about the definition of history as a process of a realization of an ideal (not always successful) which is seen as the overcoming of unjustifiable inequalities (race, gender, class, colonial status) in order to achieve democracy and make central the justified differences (individual will, commitment  and capacity). Politics is understood is the action of individuals fulfilling their goals, organized in groups to benefit that group (which frequently means to benefit the community in order to benefit themselves).  Democracy within a territory is defined as a system in which institutions let citizens influence and control elites through representative legislatures, elections and interest groups.

Kuhn identifies as ‘anomalies and puzzles’ those qualities that don’t fit and mark the decay of one paradigm and an invitation to restructure the conceptualization to build a new paradigm. Such anomalies and puzzles for politics in my model of paradigm change include the following:

            (1)Foreigners who are affected by political decisions and whose cooperation in any ‘solution’ is necessary, are assigned no role in making decisions and the executive (e.g., the President) is given the responsibility to deal with them.

(2) Political problem-solving involves processing and applying multiple sources of information through discussion (deliberation) to discover the best law and policy in the interest of the people who are affected, yet the institutions of decision making emphasize confrontation, trading and, at best, compromise rather than deliberation.

(3) The channels between those who are affected (stakeholders) and those who implement the policies and laws that are the outcome of that contest/trading/discussion are different for every policy and law, escaping the singular institutions of politics.

Political theorists usually recognize these problems with assumptions, but while analyzing one, assume the validity of the others.

The new paradigm will, I suggest, include the following elements:

(1) Problem solving (requiring deliberation) will take a central place among the other things to be resolved in making any policy or law, such as clashing moral positions and competing interests. The crucial role of information in making a policy or law will be central to the structuring of political practice. Any decision structure will have to include knowledgeable people (experts). The three sets of people involved, stakeholders, implementers and experts is what I call a ‘decision network’.

(2) Democracy, for any power center,  will come to mean that decisions will be informed and undertaken for, and with the acceptance of all those affected (stakeholders). Democratic institutions will no longer be defined as elections of representatives by sets of citizens, but by close interaction of caring decision makers with all those affected by that policy or law.

(3) The structure that makes policy and law – the decision network -  will be constructed each time a new issue is broached. Democracy, as the rule for and by those affected, depends on whether that construction and reconstruction is done to produce close connection with all stakeholders.

(4) Those affected by decisions in the main power center - the state apparatus, will often include foreigners. The significance of the concept of ‘citizen’ will weaken enormously.

As in any ‘scientific revolution’, the new paradigm will describe and analyze things that went on before, but because of conditions and demands it wasn’t important for theory to recognize the elements of the new paradigm. But now with a) the explosion of the sources and distribution of information, b) the interdependence of the world economy (‘globalization’), c) the multiplicity of ‘action centers’ (not only states but organizations at all levels) and d) widespread ability of people to mobilize politically, it has become imperative that a new standard for democracy must be implemented to make rational decisions.

With the new paradigm, a variety of concepts will change. Elections will not be considered as agents of representing people’s interests, but just the means of holding authorities accountable. Parliaments will no longer be the deliberative body’ but, if they survive, will be censors: the source of holding decision makers accountable. The negative attitude and policy towards other nation’s citizens will no longer have the ‘justification’ of ‘nationalism’ but will have to be based on real judgments. The ‘harm principle’ regulating free speech will have to measure the real effects on information in deciding on law and policy and not just momentary harm (like shouting ‘fire’ in a theater). The assessment of street demonstrations will no longer be held positive only if it leads to immediate decisions in their favor or the seizure of power, but if it leads to a new definition of the problem and becomes part of a network. And many other changes in understanding of the real impact of events will take place.

A conceptual ‘revolution’ will have taken place.  

Doug Chalmers