Democracy, Diversity, and Schooling

Overview

This entry has two main sections. The first, “Democracy and Diversity,” explains democracy—more precisely liberal democracy or republic—and its relationship to diversity. The second, “Schooling,” presents the assumptions that legitimize and shape efforts to educate students for democratic life. This section has three subsections. “Education for Democracy” explains why schools may be the best available social sites for educating democratic citizens for enlightened democratic engagement. “Discursive Approaches” demonstrates how instructional strategies involving classroom discussion are pertinent to this end. “Tensions and Limits” concludes this entry.

Democracy and Diversity

Liberal democracy is a profound political achievement for those who value diversity. A diplomat working to restore peace to a genocide-ravaged country today could very well worry that free and fair elections might eventually be held but that those elected would be the same racists and separatists who engineered the mass rape, murder, and plunder. It would be a democratically elected government but one that would ignore constitutional limits on its power and continue to deny civil rights and liberties to, and in other ways persecute, revile, and perhaps even kill, members of the marginalized minority group. This would be an illiberal democracy.

Any sort of democracy—liberal or illiberal—is a rare occurrence historically, so its absence at any particular time or place does not demand explanation. Far from taking democracy for granted, historians are surprised when it crops up. Tyrannies are the historical norm, the most common being theocracies, military dictatorships, and absolute monarchies—the latter often combining with theocracy in such a way that the monarch's total authority is believed to come from the heavens (known as the “divine right of kings”). By the time Aristotle wrote his political analyses in the 4th [Page 614]century BCE, there had been such a variety of political systems that he could classify and evaluate them. Among these were democracies, which Aristotle considered to be feckless. Either they devolved quickly into illiberal mob rule (majority will without constitutional restraint) or oligarchy (an elected but corrupt managerial class).

The founders of the U.S. constitutional democracy, such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, also were critical of the ancient democratic experiments. Having just won independence from the divine-right king of England, George III, and having been avid readers of Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment thinkers, the founders were convinced that democracy's chances for success were bleak. Democracies usually failed, they believed, not for lack of ideals but because they required “we the people” to be angels. The people, however, are not angels. Madison (1788/1937) wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels no government would be necessary” (p. 337). Government is necessary because “we the people” too easily become an illiberal mob, seduced by demagogues who become tyrants. Madison captured well the tension: “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” For this reason, the U.S. founders built into the Constitution numerous controls on both the people and the government—among them the separation of powers into distinct branches of government, a system of checks and balances, a bicameral legislature, federalism, and eventually a Bill of Rights. These have become widespread features of liberal democracies throughout the world. (The current estimate by Freedom House puts the number of nations that are liberal democracies at just under 50%.)

...