Analysis Of How Democratic Is The American Constitution By Robert Dahl

Since the Constitution’s conception, political scientists have argued about its effectiveness, fairness, and its democratic ideals. In fact, debates regarding these factors of the Constitution have become more common as it ages and new ideologies take hold in American culture. One modern-day critic of the Constitution, Robert A. Dahl, wrote a book entitled How Democratic Is the American Constitution in which the author exposes the undemocratic character of the U.S. Constitution. As a respected political scientist and professor at Yale University, Robert A. Dahl focusses his book on uncovering the Constitution’s flaws through valid information and real-life examples, creating a successful and persuasive piece. One argument that Dahl makes in

The formation of three branches of government, along with checks and balances and different representatives in each branch, was a system the founders figured would keep out tyranny from their new democracy. However, since the Constitution’s conception, the three branches of government have caused increased polarization. In American politics, the majoritarian and consensual political ideals helped shaped the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches. These three branches hinder democratic thought among citizens because the three branches act as three different majorities, even in a unified government. Dahl says that even in unified government, “the composition of each of the three majorities does not match the others; and their representatives do not necessarily agree” (Dahl 110). The disagreements present in this political system formed by the Constitution create polarization that limits the effects government has on America. For example, given the opportunity to compromise like a consensual government would, the majoritarian ideals come forth and the branches argue. Further, Dahl explains how dividied government is more common in the United States, and the hybrid system “provides no way out except by elections at fixed interval—elections that may

Dahl exposes various problems with the American Constitution that make the U.S. government undemocratic. One argument Dahl makes is that America’s constitutional system is a hybrid of both proportional and majoritarian government. Although there are pros and cons to both proportional and majoritarian, the compromise of making a hybrid also hinders the democratic nature of the United States. For one, the Constitution as it stands must revise its description for the president’s roles in office because the many duties confuse voters and create unrealistic expectations for the president. Also, a three-branch government creates three different majorities that rarely agree and further polarization. Therefore, the polarization slows down democracy by slowing down the government. In addition, the legislative, executive, and judiciary branch create confusion when citizens want to hold their government accountable for certain actions. This blocks citizens from participating in their government, the main reason for democracy. I suggest rewriting the Constitution to create a more simplified version of the three branches allow faster democratic decisions and creating a more understandable democratic government for the people. Although the effectiveness of the Constitution cannot truly be measured by the constitutional hybrid system used today, evidence shows that America is not doing well compared to other democratic