Vusal Gahramanov

1. Please explain the central tenets of the Madisonian theory of democracy as

articulated by Robert Dahl in his seminal work “A Preface to Democratic
Theory.”

Democracy is a form of government based on the method of elections in which voters

have a legislative power and directly or indirectly rule . We can see a lot of the
political ideas of practice. Another such theory is termed conservative Madisonian
theory. This idea is seeking to excel in reaching a balance between majority control
and minority control.

A. What objective(s) did James Madison desire to achieve?

The power balance between majority and minority was the most essential part which James
Madison wanted to achieve. According to him, accumulation of power in the hands of both
majority and minority is to be considered tyranny, which needs to be dispersed through
separation of power and checks and balances. He argues that internal checks within the hands
of representative group is not enough, only check and balance system between judicial,
legislative, and executive branches is necessary, since otherwise, one of them will tyrannize
the other two. By having separation of power, judicial branch will be empowered, which will
prevent tyranny thanks to power balance. By giving the hypotheses, he indicates that all ways
of tyranny are undesirable in a democratic society, and power should be dispersed, people
need to empower and enlighten themselves in groups.

B. Please identify at least one weakness in his argument(s).

Dahl claimed that he has many flows about the weaknesses of the Madisonian democracy.
James Madison initially supported liberal democracy and the best external check for him is
election. Via elections people will eradicate the consolidation of powers. Therefore, Dahl
suggests that Madison will consider the individuals' internal checks on the off chance he has
to know that they will try to tyrannize others. External regulation is the neurological
behavior, and it varies between persons. Dahl was happy that people can trust each other and
depend on each other, and through social trainings and checks people can produce better
democratic outcomes. James Madison argued that they would tyrannize persons if any group
of people or any person has control.
C. In your reasoned opinion, would James Madison agree (in whole or in part) with J. J.
Rousseau’s recommendation (highlighted) derived from the following excerpt on
general will?

According to Russo’s argument, there should be general will- a common interest which unites
all people in a certain society. Generally, people are free, and have enough capacity to decide
what is right for them. In this type of society, people have their own self-interests, but the
decision will be taken according to what is best for all. When they are in a community with a
common interest, they are to be free without giving up their freedom. When it comes to
Madison’s argument, I think he would not totally agree with Russo’s ideas. According to
him, although he supports no accumulation of power, and says it should be dispersed, it
should not be done through general will, but through check and balances, and separation of
power since we need a governing body with fair elections, and people need to have
representatives in a society with dispersed power. If we eradicate all powers in a society,
which seems utopic, people whose self-interests are similar or the same, may have more
numbers, more influence on decision making than ones with different minds. Eventually, it
will again lead to tyranny without the branch who can prevent it.

2. Do the findings and general conclusions reached by Robert Dahl in his work
“Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker”
validate, refute and/or partially explain the Hegemonic Preservation Thesis advanced
by Ran Hirschl in his attempt to describe the political origins of juristocracy?

The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker” validate, refute and/or partially explain the
Hegemonic Preservation Thesis advanced by Ran Hirschl in his attempt to describe the
political origins of juristocracy?
In the hegemonic preservation of Ran Hirschl, elites tend to preserve their hegemony in the
society through constitutionalizing rights and expanding the power of the judicial review.
Social-political elites believe that the best way to preserve their interests for the long run is to
empower the judiciary branch. Nonetheless, in Robert Dahl concept, partially explains the
thesis proposed by Ran Hirschl by claiming that Courts are quasi-legal and quasi-political
institutions. Dahl claims that on one way, the courts are trying to satisfy and take into
consideration the interests of the elite in the society, on another, they act as legal institutions
to preserve the rights of the minority against the majority.
A. Consider the Supreme Court of the United States strictly as a legal institution and
the corresponding impact of this assumption on the factors which facilitate the
constitutionalization of rights.

If the Supreme Court is a legal institution, it would create a threat to the whole public. The
reason is that judges are not elected by the public, yet they are appointed. In that question,
how the courts will be accountable to the public is questionable. As the courts do have a
public trust that courts will better protect and enact their interests and wills, the process of
constitutionalizing of rights will not be the case for a hegemonic elite to preserve their
interests.

B. Consider the Supreme Court of the United States partially as a quasi-legal and quasi-
political institution and the corresponding impact of this assumption on the factors
which facilitate the constitutionalization of rights;

If the Supreme Court is a quasi-legal and quasi-political institution, the process of

constitutionalizing rights would be a solution for hegemonic elites to preserve their rights.
Being partially legal and partially political, the Supreme Court will enact the laws that would
protect the fundamental rights of minority over the majority. As the judges are appointed by
the president, he or she will be inclined to appoint those judges that share the same ideology
with the president. As an outcome, the decisions that made courts will be byproduct political.

C. Consider the Supreme Court of the United States strictly as a political institution and
the corresponding impact of this assumption on the factors which facilitate the
constitutionalization of rights.

The last scenario is the worst scenario from the perspective of protecting rights of people.
The reason is when the Supreme Court is political, it will only serve the interests of the
prevailing group in the society. The process of constitutionalizing rights in that scenario
would not be applicable because the Supreme Court is already preserving the interests of the
hegemony. In addition, the public trust and trustworthiness of the courts will be lost.