Elitist democracy or liberal democracy? Schumpeter revisited

Eli is Democ acy o Libe al Democ acy? Schumpe e Re isi ed Fe an REQUEJO Uni e si a Pompeu Fab a Wo king Pape n.42 Ba celona 1991 The 1980's b ough abou a e i al o Poli ical Theo y, and wi hin ha , o he Theo y o Democ acy. F om a ious di e en in e es s and pe spec i es, desc ip i e and p esc ip i e ques ions ela ed o basic alues, empi ical phenomena o he mos in luencial ac o s in he ansi ion owa ds libe al democ a ic poli ical sys ems ha e been s udied wi h a enewed emphasis. Ob iously, he collapse o he socialis s a es o Eas e n Eu ope has ein o ced e en mo e he e-eme gence o he Theo y o Democ acy, up o he poin we can say ha oday i has become one o he mos impo an issues wi hin he ield o Poli ical Science. Wi hou going in o me a heo e ical ques ions abou he easons ha ha e caused his phenomenon -such as he eloca ion o he wel a e s a e since he 1970's, he de elopmen s o pa icula neo-ma xis heo ies, he li e a u e conce ning neoco po a ism o poli ical pa ies and social mo emen s, he in luence o se e al au ho s wi h a s ong e hical pe spec i e (Rawls, Habe mas, Foucaul , e c.)-, in his pape I would like o highligh he con enience o enewing he classic con as be ween he libe al ideas and p ac ices wi h espec o democ a ic ideas and p ac ices wi hin he libe al democ a ic pa adigm. Con enience ha has as much heo e ical meaning as p ac ical, ha is o say, e e ing as much o he analy ical cla i ica ion and accu acy o he main concep s and alues used by he di e en heo ies o democ acy, as e e ing o he esul o empi ical poli ical p ocesses. Wi h his objec i e in mind I will ake he wo k o Schumpe e as "lei mo i " o he discussion o he Theo y o Democ acy. Almos i y yea s a e he publica ion o Capi alism, Socialism and Democ acy (1942) his wo k con inues o be a equi ed e e ence o he a o emen ioned heo y. Al hough i is only conside ed as a highly in elligen "a e -dinne cha ", as Jon Els e commen s ollowing Robbins (Els e 1983), i would con inue being a "classic" a e -dinne cha , a leas when p esen ing some cul u al aspec s o he c isis o capi alism o in analysing he limi s and possibili ies o he di e en heo ies o Democ acy. In Schumpe e 's wo k we a e in e es ed abo e all in wo cen al ideas: he heo y ha capi alism has s uc u al componen s ha make i he ic im o i s own success, and his no ion o "ano he heo y" o Democ acy, mo e ecen ly i led in di e en ways -compe i i e heo y, economic o eli is heo y, e c.- and i s con aposi ion o a supposed "classical doc ine" o Democ acy. In he i s sec ion o his pape I will e e o he ques ion o whe he he schumpe e ian analysis commi s o no some allacies in i s a gumen s, such as he allacy pa s p o o o in ela ion o no ions o capi alism and mode niza ion, he allacy o he has y gene aliza ion, o wha we can desc ibe as he allacy o abs ac ion: a heo e ical a i ude implici in some o he poli ical philosophical s udies. A he same ime, I will ques ion e y b ie ly he Schumpe e ian no ion o socialism. In he second sec ion we will discuss, on he one hand, whe he he con as alluded o be ween he "classical" and he "o he " heo y o Democ acy is cu en ly adequa e. I will highligh his con as om he webe ian pe spec i e o poli ical heo y connec ed wi h he concep ions o Schumpe e . On he o he hand, I would like o e e o he con enience o p esen ing p esen day libe al democ acies as his o ical p oduc s in which he e a e h ee dis inc dimensions, each one endowed wi h an au onomous logic in con as o he o he s. I. CAPITALISM, MODERNIZATION AND DISCOURSE FALLACIES Wi hin he a ea o social sciences, as well as poli ical philosophy, h ee dis inc allacies o en appea in he a gumen s: he classic allacies pa s p o o o and he has y gene aliza ion, and wha we cha ac e ise as he allacy o abs ac ion. By allacy pa s p o o o we unde s and an a gumen ha a ibu es exclusi e esponsibili y o some consequences o he somewha complex economic o social phenomena, o example capi alism, which in eali y, howe e , a e sha ed wi h o he phenomena o he same kind, socialism o example. Tha is o say, o unde s and one pa o a gene al phenomena as i i is he whole. The second allacy, o i s pa , consis s o he in e ence o a gene aliza ion ha is oo excessi e, o ounded on a e y small sample. Bo h allacies a e s udied in he a ea o classical logic (1). Finally, he allacy o abs ac ion e e s o he supposi ion, explici o implici , ha a heo y possesses a g ea e explana o y powe acco ding o he deg ee o abs ac ion o he ca ego ies used in i s analysis, wi hou e e ing o he eal empi ical wo ld in mo e han an in ui i e o impo e ished mode. I is a mo e gene al allacy han he p e ious ones because i e e s o he explana ion claims o he discussion and no o a pa icula a gumen wi hin i . In he poli ical ield i is a cha ac e is ic ha a ec s abo e all he analyses p oduced by he philosophical adi ion (Foucaul 's wo k abou "powe " is possibly a ecen example o his. McCa hy 1990). Benjamin Ba be w i es: "Whe e poli ical science a oided poli ics wi hou achie ing science, poli ical philosophy a oids poli ics by achie ing philosophy" (Ba be 1988:5) We can b ie ly see now i we can a ibu e o no hese allacies o Schumpe e when he analyzes some o he “cul u al con adic ions o capi alism", con adic ions which imply i s u u e subs i u ion by a Socialis economic o ganiza ion (I.1). Subsequen ly, we no e one b ie conside a ion abou he concep o Socialism used by Schumpe e (1.2). (I.1) Schumpe e 's e lec ions abou " he cul u al con adic ions o capi alism" ha e a ce ain connec ion wi h he la e wo k o D. Bell. The e olu ion o his economic sys em would ha e b ough wi h i he up u e o ce ain elemen s ha we e he o igin o i s e iciency and s abili y. In his way, a kind o ancien g eek hyb is would ha e been p oduced, an excess ha would unde mine he agen s o con ol, hose ha ac as he soph osyne o he sys em (2). Bu Schumpe e is basically an economis . He does no p oduce any syn hesis o a sociocul u al na u e, conce ning he p ocess o mode niza ion o Wes e n socie ies, bu he limi s himsel o ema king some o he consequences o he "obse able endencies" in he economic sys em o he p ocess. Ou in en ion in his sec ion is o commen he equi ocal use ha is made o he e m "capi alism", some imes unde s ood in i s s ic economic sense and some imes in a much wide cul u al sense nea e o wha Webe unde s ands by mode niza ion. This use should no be c i isized in i sel bu i can easily lead o e oneous conclusions. In o de o discuss his ques ion i would be use ul o de e mine wo b ie cha ac e iza ions, mo e han de ini ions, o wha we unde s and by capi alism and mode niza ion. By capi alism we unde s and an economic sys em based on he p oduc ion o indi iduals, g oups o o ganiza ions o a ma ke in o de o ob ain bene i s (Be ge 1986). Mo e han "p ope y", whose legal and poli ical egula ion has subs an ially changed om he beginning o he libe al e a, he main ai o his sys em is, hen, he exis ence o an e ec i e ma ke . Mode niza ion is a mo e comp ehensi e concep and hus mo e di icul o cha ac e ize wi hou c ea ing ambigui ies. In a gene al sense, i consis s in a p ocess ollowed by Wes e n socie ies in he las wo cen u ies, in which he e ha e been p oduced mul idimensional a icula ions and causal in e ela ions be ween, a leas , ou di e en a eas: economic g ow h unknown up o hen, he ins i u ionaliza ion o poli ical and legal p ocesses ha ha e as a basic co e he o ganiza ional p inciples o poli ical libe alism, he cul u al changes associa ed wi h he de elopmen o he illus a ed concep o eason, and, abo e all, he echnological e olu ion a he hea o he p ocesses o indus ializa ion. Thus one is dealing wi h a complex phenomenon o g ea ex en , and ha in s ic sense a ec s only some o he coun ies o he wo ld linked o he Eu opean cul u al adi ion. Cha ac e ising bo h e ms in his sense, capi alism, as an economic sys em, is one pa o mode niza ion. Bu he e could also be mode niza ion wi h o he economic o ganiza ions in socie y (e.g. socialism). And om a linguis ic poin o iew, we can conclude ha no all wha is ela ed o he global phenomena can be ela ed o each o i s componen s. No ice e sa. The analysis o social sciences can delimi hose phenomena ha mus be associa ed o he global p ocess as an a icula ed his o ical p oduc (mode niza ion), and hose which mus be associa ed o one o i s componen s (capi alism). To a ibu e o he la e he esponsibili y o a phenomena ha ac ually co esponds o he o me would be o all in o he pa s p o o o allacy. (This is wha a ious Ma xis s schools, o example, ha e o en done when hey ha e associa ed indi idualism, social anomie, o e i o ial imbalance o he capi alis mode o p oduc ion, wi hou conside ing, howe e , he possible ela ion o hese phenomena o socialism). In Schumpe e 's a gumen s abou capi alism and i s e olu ion we ind his allacy, and on occasions, unning he isk o in e ing excessi e ex apola ions abou he u u e o capi alism -o abou he absence o i s u u e- om wha he conside s i s "obse able endencies". Wi hou a emp ing o be exhaus i e, and a oiding s ic economic science a gumen s, some o he aspec s ha , acco ding o Schumpe e , a ec he "cul u al con adic ions o capi alism" a e: 1) The P ocess o C ea i e Des uc ion. Capi alism canno be s a iona y. I e olu ionizes he economic s uc u e " om wi hin", des oying wha wen be o e h ough a p ocess o compe i ion ha a ec s cos s as much as quali y. C ea i i y in consume goods, me hods o anspo , o p oduc ion, sys ems o o ganiza ion, sea ch o ma ke s and echnology. I is a p ocess ha unde mines adi ional suppo s exis ing a a gi en momen , weakening i s own sys em. Mo eo e , capi alism de i alizes he idea o "p ope y" ( he exis ence o g ea and small sha eholde s). II) Ra ionali y. Capi alism encou ages a ionali y in beha iou . Ra ionali y in ol es, on he one hand, he "maximiza ion" o pa icula in e es s o indi iduals and g oups, he use o he ins umen al means in a cohe en o m, and in he same way a se ies o eadap a ions empi ically con olled by a p ocedu e o lawed- es ing. On he o he hand, a ionaliza ion ushes in o bo h p i a e li e and cul u al o ms. Child en a e no now economic asse s, hedonism and consump ion ha e subs i u ed sa ing and he p e ious "wo ldly asce ism" (Webe ). Consump ion wins agains accumula ion, diminishing he desi eabili y o incomes abo e a ce ain le el. A he same ime, howe e , when he b eaks o ce ain alues associa ed wi h e hical o eligious adi ion ail ( he soph osyne), i a ional componen s o beha iou ha a e c i ical o capi alism eme ge and can no be e u ed wi h a ional a gumen s, especially when based on long e m conside a ions. III) The Obsolescence o he En ep eneu ial Func ion. Inc easing di icul ies o he classical unc ion o managemen . Inc easing impo ance o specialized g oups. The con ex , mo eo e , has been accus omed o change and each ime a g ea e numbe o ac o s a e calculable. The success o business ends up in emo ing he owne s. IV) P o ec ing S a a. In he mode n e a he e was a symbiosis be ween he nobili y and he p oduc i e sec o s. The o me occupied he S a e o ganiza ion, guided poli ical decisions and supplied o icials o he a my ( he bou geoisie was only some imes in cha ge o local adminis a ion). I was a sec o ha su i ed he social and echnical condi ions ha p oduced i . In conclusion: he bou geoisie is poli ically de enceless wi hou he p o ec ion o non-bou geoisie sec o s, bu capi alism, howe e , encou ages he b eaking up o he p ecapi alis amewo k o socie y. V) In ellec uals. Cha ac e ized as hose who exe cise he powe o he spoken and w i en wo d, hey a e used o no ha ing any di ec esponsibili y in p ac ical ma e s and hus, hey lack a di ec knowledge o expe ience. They encou age sel -concei ed a i udes as "c i ical", mo e om a logic o opposi ion, we could say, han om a logic o go e nmen (Simila o he ole o he demagogues in he A henian Assembly a he end o V C.b.C.). The e exis s a pa allel be ween educa ion and he scale o mo al alues in he in ellec ual sec o s and he adminis a i e o bu eauc a ic sec o s agains he alues and echnical c i e ia o he economic sys em as i ope a es. In Schumpe e 's wo k hese i e a gumen s suppo ing he concep o he p ocess o sel -des uc ion o capi alism a e pu in he shadow o he easible subs i u ion by socialism. P esumibly, he same phenomena would ha e been ea ed in a di e en way i one con empla ed he eali y o "emp iness", ha Schumpe e ejec s, o i one main ained ha he e was no o he al e na i e o capi alism han capi alism i sel . In his las case, o example, he p ocess o C ea i e Des uc ion could ans o m a handicap in o a i ue. I wha is changed is he ype o capi alism mo e han he ype o economic sys em he ques ion would no consis so much in seeing whe he his p ocess occu s, bu in seeing o wha poin i is capable o inding ins umen s o adap o social eali y. And i seems beyond all easonable doub ha capi alis sys ems ind hese ins umen s mo e easily han socialis sys ems do. To sum up, he nega ion o a pa icula ype o capi alism does no imply he nega ion o capi alism as a sys em. He e Schumpe e 's a gumen s all in o he allacy o has y gene aliza ion. On he one hand, i also seems a li le pa ial o main ain ha i is capi alism which p omo es " a ionali y" in beha iou . Ra he i is an a i ude linked o mode niza ion and i s echnical componen s, whose consequences mus be seen wi hin he inhe en ambigui ies ha mode niza ion p esen s om an emancipa o y poin o iew. I is unde s ood ha he mo al alues ha in luence a p ocess o emancipa ion unde mine a he same ime he ideas and alues ha ensu ed sociopoli ical s abili y. (Some hing simila happened in he p ocess o A henian "Enligh enmen " in he V C.b.C.). Bu cu en ly his is a phenomenon ela ed mo e o pos mode ni y han o pos capi alism. On he o he hand, om he c isis o he g ea ideologies ha claimed o ha e global explana ions o social eali y, and o he app op ia e he apies o i s main p oblems, we can ag ee ha oday we ind ou sel es imme sed in a new p ocess o indi idualiza ion. We know ha he i s mode n Enligh enmen subs i u ed eligious ai h wi h ano he ai h, he ai h o eason (scien i ic, his o ical, poli ical, e c.), bu in he second hal o he p esen cen u y we a e wi nessing ano he u n o he sc ew in his p ocess. The e cu en ly exis s g ea e e hical au onomy -and, hus, a g ea e diso ien a ion- wi h espec o he secula guidelines o ha i s mode n emancipa ing mo emen . Today he indi idual no longe has o conside a aining a li e a e dea h bu nei he does he see a no ma i e e hic ahead ha ies o assis in he ad en o some “new man" (o wha e e ype). In his way, he allacy pa s p o o o glides cons an ly in he Schumpe e ian a gumen s abou a ionaliza ion, conside ing i in i s echnical meaning as well as e hical. Howe e , he a en ion he pays o he ex a- a ional componen s o beha iou esul s in a good an ido e o he isks o he use o he allacy o abs ac ion o emind us ha hese componen s can be balanced wi h di icul y h ough a ional a gumen s. I should be added ha hose pe iods in which he e ec i i y o hese ideas and alues ha “cemen " sociopoli ical o ganiza ion con inue o be ques ioned. Tha is o say, in hose pe iods in which cul u al con adic ions o he p esen sys em appea . Some hing simila could be said o he analysis o he en ep eneu ial unc ion p esen ed by Schumpe e . The capi alis e olu ion has e ec i ely dislodged a kind o "old" manage in some p oduc i e sec o s. Howe e , Schumpe e 's conclusion esul s in an excessi ely wide applica ion. Mo e han acing he allacy o pa s p o o o we a e acing a has y gene aliza ion o an "in ui i e" cha ac e , based on li le e idence. I is a unc ional e-adap a ion a he han a decline. Ano he alid in ui ion o Schumpe e (bu again he goes beyond wha seems concep ually and empi ically easonable) is ha o seeing which di e ences be ween libe al logic, on he one hand, and democ a ic and social logic on he o he , in capi alism's ela ions wi h he adi ional p o ec ing s a a, in ellec uals and Adminis a ion. Indeed, nei he bu eauc acies no in ellec uals (in a g ea e sense) a e p esided o e by he logic o he i s economic libe alism, which unde s ood he social coexis ence om he indi idualis pe spec i e o p i a e p ope y and eedom o he ma ke and which ad oca ed, mo eo e , a ha mony be ween p i a e in e es s and gene al wel a e. I is unde s ood ha social pe spec i e uni es he ollowe s o ideologically e y di e en posi ions, such as Conse a i es and Socialis s, in he c i icism o he p ac ical consequences o he capi alis p ocess as pu o wa d by libe al p emises. Howe e , also in e e ence o his poin , he Scumpe e ian conclusions appea a he e y leas exagge a ed, i no un ocused. One hing o be said is ha in ellec ual logic is simila o he classic demagogue ( o example, ha o he A henian Clio in he Wa o he Peloponesus na a ed by Thucydides), his logic being based on he maximiza ion o speci ic alues and in e es s wi hou conside ing any c i e ia o echnical applica ion and p ac ical incompa ibili y o o he alues and c i e ia ha a e also desi able. And ano he hing one can conclude is ha in ellec uals mus necessa ily unde mine he basis o he economic sys em (Al hough many o he in ellec uals ind hemsel es wo king ou side he ambi o he ma ke , o example in public Adminis a ion, a posi ion ha acili a es hei abili y o p esen hemsel es as de ende s o he "public in e es "). In wha e e case, his is a ques ion ha mus be emi ed o de ailed s udies o an empi ical na u e like hose ha ha e been ca ied ou in ela ion o decision-making p ocesses and implemen a ion o public policies du ing he 1980s (3). To sum up, in Schumpe e 's a gumen s we obse e he exis ence o he pa s p o o o allacy in ela ion o he p ocesses o a ionaliza ion and des uc ion o p o ec ing s a a, while in he analysis o he p ocess o "c ea i e des uc ion", o he obsolescence o he en ep eneu ial unc ion and he ole o he "in ellec uals" and he bu eauc acy, he allacy o he has y gene aliza ion is p esen . Anyway, i is impo an o emembe ha Schumpe e 's a gumen s abou capi alism do no acili a e he easoning ha we ha e cha ac e ized as allacy o abs ac ion, wi h he possible excep ion o some aspec s o he p ocess o c ea i e des uc ion. When he deals wi h economic o cul u al ques ions his concep ion possesses a clea me hodological oca ion ha connec s i wi h he empi ical wo ld. His ca ego ies a e no inclined o o e - heo ising on e hical o philosophical e ms ha y o be mo e explana o y as well as mo e abs ac , and which, lacking empi ical and p ac ical sense in many cases cause i o ha e p ac ically no in o ma i e alue. Schumpe e 's wo k implici ly claims he c i e ia o Poppe ian alsabili y in o de ha some o i s cen al heses can be e u ed (as has happened on a ious occasions). The ollowing able is a summa y e iew o Schumpe e 's a gumen s: Table1 (1.2) F om Schumpe e 's e lec ions abou socialism we only wan o no e he e wo aspec s and a inal conside a ion. Fi s ly, he ine i able o e - heo ising ha his "in ui ions" ca y abou he supposed sys emic in eg a ion and social in eg a ion o he socialis economic o ganiza ion. I would seem ha once a ce ain le el o indus ial de elopmen is achie ed and once he inhe en p oblems o he pe iod o ansi ion a e o e come he alleged economic e iciency o socialism and i s g ea e le el o unc ional a ionali y would be imposed by a ype o immanen logic o he his o ical e olu ion. The sudden ups and downs o capi alism could be a oided, he cen al planning would comple e he p ocess o he manage ial concen a ion o he g ea p oduc i e uni s, i would no longe be acing he con adic ions be ween he public and p i a e ields, e c. Mo eo e i would hope ully, acco ding o Schumpe e , esul in a g ea e e hical loyal y on behal o he ci izens and he in ellec uals han in he p e ious p oduc i e sys em (4). The hegemonic eli es would ha e a g ea e numbe o ins umen s wi h which o ca y ou policies o an au ho i a ian s yle and o " a ionalize" he in es men s o p i a e sa ings, and e en Schumpe e does no concei e g ea di icul ies a he ime o inse ing elemen s o a bou geois o igin -as indi idual ini ia i e- in socialis bu eauc acy. This bu eauc acy is concei ed, howe e , as an eno mous and ine i able no ma i e han anali ical posi ion. C. Pa eman 1970) (8). Schumpe e ejec s he "e hicis " p e ensions o he classic heo y o democ acy, bu he con inues o alk abou a con as be ween he classic democ acy and a compe i i e and ep esen a i e democ acy. This makes possible he in e p e a ion o he la e as an "impe ec " democ acy, because i does no allow an e ec i e pa icipa ion o he ci izens in he decisions in which hey a e in ol ed. Acco ding o he p elibe al ousseaunian e sion o he classic concep ion, he ac ha ci izens a e ou side o he decisional p ocesses has o be based only on echnical conside a ions, bu no on he libe al app oach o he con enien independence o he poli ical eli es espec o he ci izens (o he cons i uen s). On he g ounds o his law in Schumpe e 's heo y can ind he opposi e posi ion - e y widesp ead bu , acco ding o my iew, e oneous his o ically and concep ually-be ween a "di ec democ acy" and a " ep esen a i e (o indi ec ) democ acy", bo h p esen ed as wo di e en e sions o he same class o poli ical o ganiza ion. In ac , he hea o he wes e n poli ical o ganiza ions has no been democ a ic bu libe al du ing he las wo cen u ies. The ep esen a i e go e nmen , which has g own om poli ical libe alism, does no cons i u e and "indi ec " o “impe ec " o m o he "sel -go e nmen o he people”. E en ecen ly when some democ a ic elemen s (uni e sal su age igh s o associa ion pa ies o masses e c.) ha e been g a ed on i s o ganiza ional p inciples he ins i u ional and decisional logic o he ep esen a i e go e nmen con inues o be ex emely di e en om a poli ical sys em based on a so-called "popula -will". In his poin he Madison's lucidi y -in hinking o he ep esen a i e go e nmen as some hing ex emely di e en and mo e desi able han democ acy (Fede alis 10)- seems clea e and concep ually be e han Schumpe e 's app oach. (11.2) F om he o egoing, I belie e i is con enien o e u n o he mo e "classic" compa ison be ween a p elibe al and a libe al heo y o democ acy as wo dis inc pa adigms (in a Kuhnian sense) in which di e en p og ammes o esea ch (in a Laka os sense) a e de eloped (9). Na u ally, he poli ical, economic, and cul u al con ex o p esen day democ acies is e y di e en om ha o he pe iod o Cons an and Tocque ille. Howe e , he powe ul idea o he dis inc ion be ween ancien and mode n libe y con inues o be one o he basic c i e ia o dema ca ion o he pa adigms o democ acy (10). B ie ly, and as has been no ed many imes, om he dis inc no ion o libe y ha we adop we ob ain di e en democ acies (Be lin 1988, Sa o i 1987, Bobbio 1984). Di e en e hical dimensions wi hin libe al democ acies I is in his way ha cu en libe al democ acies can be unde s ood as his o ical p oduc s o an equilib ium be ween a ious au onomous dimensions o componen s: libe al, s ic ly democ a ic, and social dimensions ha a e ound con olled by di e en kinds o logic bu whose a icula ion has demons a ed a pa icula s abili y in he empi ical sphe e. (This a gumen inds i sel a emo ed om he p elibe al heo y o democ acy which does no dis inguish be ween hese componen s and i s di e en in e nal logic). This a icula ion has been p oduced howe e om he libe al co e o he o ganiza ion o poli ical powe (nega i e libe ies, sepa a ion o powe s, p inciple o legali y, e c.). And i is om his libe al co e ha we can unde s and he possibili ies and bounda ies o democ acies ha assume his as hei main o ganiza ional basis. In he same way ha he i s poli ical libe alism was non- democ a ic, e en an i-democ a ic, he logic o he posi i e libe ies o he democ a ic dimension based s ic ly on he alues o equali y and ci izen pa icipa ion is o eign o libe al p inciples. Nei he nega i e libe y no sepa a ion o powe s no he p inciple o legali y a e in a s ic sense aspec s o he democ a ic a i ude. (Fo example, he ac ha ci izens ha e o ely on p o ec i e measu es wi h espec o wha social majo i ies can decide in a pa icula momen is a equi emen ha pe ains o he libe al dimension and ha is, howe e , o eign o he s ic democ a ic dimension). So, we can s a e ha libe al democ acies ha e no oca ion o become poli ical democ acies, ha is o say, sys ems ha y o maximize hei s ic ly democ a ic dimension. Libe al democ acy is a he es ablished as an al e na i e sys em o all he o he a emp s o cons uc a " ue poli ical democ acy". And i is based on he a icula ion -his o ically and empi ically ull o ensions- be ween di e en kinds o logic (ini ially be ween wo unique ypes o logic, he libe al and he democ a ic). And we mus b ing ou sel es back o he p ac ical g ound o see how he alues and ules o bo h dimensions a e going o a icula e hemsel es in such a way ha nei he cancels ou he o he (11). And he e Schumpe e eappea s. As well as he libe al democ acies o he indus ialized coun ies canno p e en hemsel es om being eli is and compe i i e. Because o his Schumpe e is co ec in c i icizing he “classical doc ine" unde s ood as a democ a ic heo y o a non-libe al na u e. Tha is o say, as a heo y based on he alues and o ganiza ional p inciples o he s ic ly democ a ic dimension and which lea es aside he libe al pe spec i e. Some hing simila happens when he libe al and democ a ic dimensions agg ega e hemsel es in o a new dimension, he social (abo e all in he pos wa pe iod). Al hough mo e ela ed o he democ a ic dimension han o he libe al, he social componen is endowed wi h an au onomous logic i educible om he la e wo (Requejo 1990). I ep esen s he hi d elemen o he p esen concep o ci izenship in Eu opean libe al democ acies (Ba bale 1988) and a new s ep in he p ocess o mode niza ion o Wes e n socie ies. Based on he alues o socioeconomic equali y secu i y associa ed wi h he di use concep o wel a e i is, as is unde s ood, one componen whose ins i u ional o igins can be ound in he ac ions o ce ain Eu opean s a es du ing he las yea s o he XIX cen u y, s a es ha did no ely on a eal libe al o ganiza ion (Ge many). Bu i is, a he same ime, he key dimension o he con empo a y socialis adi ion. And om bo h pe spec i es, his dimension in ades he o ganiza ion p inciples o libe al democ acies. To ma k he au onomy o he social dimension wi h espec o he libe al and s ic ly democ a ic dimensions means ha such non social aspec s o he i s libe al democ acies and he non libe al democ a ic aspec s o he social componen should be conside ed (O e-P euss 1989). And i also means conside ing he di icul y o inding an op imum o he h ee basic e hical dimensions in he speci ic policies as a s uc u al handicap. None o hese dimensions can be ound maximized. Facing his mul idimensionali y we can see, on he one hand, how in he a ea o poli ical science in he pos -wa pe iod he adi ional plu alis models did no pick up his dimension p o oundly. On he o he hand, in he empi ical ield one canno deny he poli ical incidence o he con using language o he non-libe al concep ions o democ acy, especially in an au ho i a ian con ex ha ies o impose a libe al democ a ic sys em. As is es ablished in he classical s udy coo dina ed by O'Donnell, Schmi e and Whi ehead, he claim o maximizing he di e en componen s wo ks owa ds he b eakdown o an au ho i a ian sys em e en i subsequen ly i wo ks in a ou o an ine i able "desencan o" (Schmi e -O'Donnell 1986) (12). The no ma i e e hical basis o he componen s o Wes e n libe al democ acies can be exp essed in he ollowing way (13): Table2 Conside a ion o libe al democ acies as a his o ical p oduc based on h ee dis inc componen s, which p esen ly need each o he bu espond o di e en p emises and no ma i e in e es s, seems con enien when we analyse bo h he desc ip i e and p esc ip i e aspec s o he e-loca ion o Wes e n wel a e s a es since he 1970s (14). The g owing in e na ionaliza ion o decision-making p ocesses, he incidence o new echnologies, he necessa y adap a ion o public in e en ion in ma ke mechanisms, he eme gence o mo e "mic o" in e en ions in compa ison wi h he pe iod o pos -wa expansion (1950-1975), he new dis ibu i e c i e ia, he policies o mone a ism and es uc u ing ine icien p oduc i e sec o s, he changes in he p ocesses o a ionaliza ion o public adminis a ions, e c, in Schumpe e 's pe spec i e, un he isk o being analysed only as "no ma i e" ques ions o a echnical na u e wi hin he main p og ammes o esea ch o p esen day poli ical science (plu alis , eli is , "new igh ", coope a is , e c) lea ing aside he no ma i e aspec s o a mo e e hical na u e. Unde s anding ambigui ies Specially om he 1980s, he s a e can no longe be seen as he only a ional decision-make . The Webe ian a ionali y seems o ha e dilu ed a complexi y in which he adminis a i e eli es canno be conside ed as playing a subo dina e and passi e ole. Today he e a e mo e p oblems o sol e, mo e a iables o conside , a g ea e numbe o p i a e and adminis a i e le els in ol ed, a g ea e accele a ion in decision-making and i is mo e di icul o es ablish a a pa icula ime wha he "public in e es " means. A e he eme gence o hese phenomena i is di icul no o accep ha he p ac ical p ocesses o poli ical decision-making a e mo e hidden and au onomous han wha he adi ional he o ic o libe al democ a ic s a es used o accep (o he plu alis "p og am o esea ch" o he 1950s and 1960s). And his changes he meaning o he concep o a ionali y e en when one ques ions, om di e en pe spec i es, ha i s concep has emained apped in i s echnoc a ic aspec . I seems con enien no o sepa a e i om his sense when we alk o emancipa i e o "communica i e" a ionali ies (Habe mas 1981), i we do no wish o emain apped in he con a y pe spec i e, ha is, he one ha ies o claim an e hical a ionali y conside ed in di ec con as o he echnoc a ic o ins umen al a ionali y. In my iew, poli ical science and in pa icula he policy analysis will ha e o show in he 1990s he use ul sense o a concep o e hical a ionali y buil om (in s ead o being in con as o) he ins umen al a ionali y. As well as wha happened wi h he democ a ic ambigui y o he g owing p ocess o bu eauc a iza ion -an ambigui y ha made his p ocess a imes an obs acle o he democ a iza ion p ocess and an essen ial condi ion o he ex ension o he "democ a iza ion" wel a e policies'-, he p ocess o g owing echnoc a ic conside a ion also possesses simila ambigui ies in ela ion o some poli ical sys ems ha a emp o a icula e he libe al, democ a ic and social componen s in he mos cohe en s uc u e possible. Schumpe e 's heo y encou ages o jump o conclusions abou he a ional cha ac e o he e hical alues (in spi e o he e hical backg ound o his own concep ion). The ecen eme gence o poli ical heo ies wi h a s ong no ma i e componen -especially since Rawls's wo k- seems o e u e ha conclusion. Howe e , I hink i con inues o be an impo an poin o e e ence a he momen o unde s and he ambigui ies o he "e hical" and " unc ional" shadows ha wha e e poli ical p ac ice a e ca ied away (uni e sal su age appeals o sel ish mo i es, pa icipa ion appeals o manipula ion, e c). These ambigui ies and shadows o be ma ginalised, o ins ance, by he con empo a y e hics o communica ion, in spi e o i s sensi i i y owa ds p agma ic conside a ions and he accep ance o dissension. This app oach used o pick up mo e he linguis ic aspec o p agma ism han he poli ical aspec (Apel 1988). This app oach leads o he a emp o each an impossible syn hesis be ween he classic democ acy and he "o he democ acy" which Schumpe e was hinking abou . Following he communica i e line we can only a i e a he claim o a “pa icipa o y" democ acy, in con as wi h he desi able bounda ies o libe al democ acies. F om my poin o iew, he ques ion is o ind legi ima e c i e ia in libe al democ acies om bo h, deon ological and consequen ialis , bu wi h an explici conside a ion o he bounda ies imposed on he ins umen al a ionali y. In his poin I hink ha Rawls goes u he han Apel and Habe mas (15). I is he same concep o he ule o law ha mus be econside ed in he1990s (Gau hie 1990). E en i we assume he concep o be an "ideal ype", he changes in he social condi ions eloca e he e ec i e limi s and possibili ies o his "ideal ype", especially om he in asion o he social dimension in he s uc u es and decision-making p oceses o libe al democ acies. Bu while he libe al co e is main ained in he ule o law I do no hink ha we a e jus i ied in supposing ha he pa adigm has changed, despi e he e o s o he co po a is s and pa icipa ionis s. Technoc a ic and bu eauc a ic p ocesses ha e consolida ed he au onomy o s a e in ela ion o socie y and o he decision-make s wi h ega d o ep esen a i e poli ics. And hese p ocesses ha e ep esen ed some clea limi s o he expansion o he s ic democ a ic dimension wi hin libe al democ acies and o he possibili ies o i s e ec i e e o m (Dahl 1982), as Schumpe e al eady suspec ed. To alk, o example, o "economic democ acy" as a key aspec o he ho ough de elopmen o democ acy is some hing esidual in he cu en p ac ice o libe al democ acies. In wha e e case i is some hing ha emains dis an om any al e na i e o hese democ acies (Adamson 1990) (16). Bu a he same ime, he inco po a ion o he social dimension has ein o ced he p ac ical uses o he con empo a y ule o law. The knowledge ha we ha e abou he new decision-making p ocesses is no e y p ecise. Nei he is ou knowledge o he poli ical impac o new echnology no o go e nmen agencies and he o ganiza ions o in e es s. Bu ou knowledge o possible a icula ions be ween e hical no ma i e alues and p inciples and echnical c i e ia is smalle s ill. Some imes bo h ha e been ea ed, in ui i ely, as wo sepa a ed eali ies, e en con adic o y, wi h no connec ion (Lozano 1990). As i a e c i icizing he Webe ian app oaches we mus ine i ably go back o hem (17). Poli ical heo y is eadap ing i sel o he pe iod o cul u al "pos mode ni y" a he end o his cen u y. We a e wi nessing he agmen a ion o a ionali ies which does no seem con adic o y, howe e , o a mo e comp ehensi e in e disciplina y discussion. Libe al democ acies a e necessa y and pa adoxically ins umen al ends. And i is he pe manen p essu e in he p ocess o compa ibili y o measu es and objec i es which con e he mos open cha ac e o he e o m o hese democ acies. I seems ha we mus look o he ou come o libe al democ acies wi hin hemsel es. And in his sense, i seems con enien o a oid he ealiza ion o u opian models o an e hical na u e which do no e lec i s ope a i e applicabili y as well as a esigned a i ude which explains e e y hing in e ms o he " a ionali y o he sys em". (And i would be a eme i y o conside libe al democ acies as some hing i e e sible -a leas in he Sou he n Eu opean coun ies in a his o ical ime when hei echnological de elopmen could mean he inexis ence o second oppo uni ies). Schumpe e 's wo k cons i u es an in i a ion o wo k wi h g ea e empi ical accu acy bu wi hou enouncing o a poli ical heo y ha is as comp ehensi e as possible. And I hink ha in o de o upda e he no ma i e -e hical and echnical- ounda ion o libe al democ acies i would be con enien o keep he Schumpe e ian " one" o his "a e -dinne cha ". Table1 Table2 NOTES (1) A igo ous and eadable in oduc ion o he analysis o logic, whose i s pa is w i en in he s yle o a h ille wi h She lock Holmes as he main cha ac e , Neble 1985. (2) I is unde s ood ha in ancien G eece he concep o hyb is (excess) e ol ed om being associa ed wi h he demos du ing he Home ic pe iod un il i was associa ed wi h he concep o " y anny" in he ollowing cen u ies. Fo i s pa , he soph osyne was an ideal o a ional measu emen o sel -con ol, as opposed o he hyb is, which in he poli ical sphe e was exp essed in he cons i u ion o Solon (594 B.C.). A Cons i u ion ha was he i s o se e al e o ms which ended in he poli ical sys em o Cleis henes, Ephial es and Pe icles, called demok a ia by He odi us. (3) In hese s udies i has been no ed, o example, he con enience o in oducing changes in public bu eauc acies in o de o ans o m he adi ional adminis a i e model in o one which encou ages he ollowing c i e ia: 1) igo in o mula ing and implemen ing policies and con ol o he esul s ob ained; 2) lexibili y in he in e nal o ganiza ion which allows he maximiza ion o ini ia i e and he i “en ep eneu ial spi i " in le els o adminis a ion; 3) abili y o lea n om si ua ions which change mo e and mo e apidly. All his ends in he in oduc ion o manage ial c i e ia in o he conduc o public bu eauc acies, a ques ion ha lea es us a om Schumpe e 's posi ion o wo almos i econcilable wo lds. A i s e alua ion o he c i e ia in oduced in adminis a ion in Wes e n coun ies du ing he 1980s, in he Re ue F ançaise d'Adminis a ion Publique, n. 51, Pa is 1989. (4) Samuel Bowles and He be Gin is insis on he possibili ies o loyal y and accoun abili y on he pa o wo ke s in an “…economic democ acy": "economic democ acy, by p o iding an al e na i e o unaccoun able hie a chical au ho i y in in es men and p oduc ion, can p omo e loyal y, commi men and accoun abili y on he pa o wo ke s and hose who con ol in es ible esou ces" (Bowles-Gin is 1986:211). (5) In his a ea he allacies o abs ac ion and has y gene aliza ion a e de eloped wi hou hind ance, and he p elimina y obse a ion o Schumpe e abou he isks o compa ing a eal sys em (capi alism) wi h a men al image canno be conside ed as mi iga ion. (The concep ion o socialism is pe haps he pa o his wo k which bes illus a es he cha ac e iza ion o Schumpe e 's wo k by Els e as an "in elligen a e -dinne cha "). (6) A ecen a emp o o e come as much he Webe ian pessimism as his c i ics - o example, Lukacs and he i s F ank u School which in ac did no o e come ha pessimism’s he wo k o he "second Habe mas". As is unde s ood, his Theo ie des Kommunika i en Handelns ies o de end a heo y o a ionali y based on he pos -Wi gens enian concep ions o language ha makes possible a new no ma i e ounda ion o he p ac ical wo ld (e hical and poli ical) ha a oids he selec i e pa iali ies o he p ocess o a ionaliza ion o Wes e n socie ies denounced by Webe , as much as he ine ec i eness o he abyss be ween heo y and p ac ice ha show Ado no's and Ho kheime 's concep ions and he adi ional Ma xism, espec i ely. In my iew, he ambi ious app oach o Habe mas and he exhaus i e and e ined anali ical ma e ial employed is in con as o he esul s inally ob ained (Requejo 1991). (7) In his sense we can see, o ins ance, J. Bu heims's concep o "dema chy" as an al e na i e model o "democ acy" (" ha does no exis in p ac ice"). This “dema chy" is cha ac e ised by: 1) A "s a is ical ep esen a ion" whose ep esen a i es a e no elec ed by people. Mo e o less as in he ancien G eek p ac ice o leade ship selec ion (I is no clea how ep esen ed can con ol hei ep esen a i es); 2) Decision-making is composed o se e al au onomous bodies, and no o a cen alized go e nmen (I is no clea , hen, how he p oblems o a necessa y coo dina ion can be sol ed); 3) The ambi s o decision-making a e c ea ed by unc ional a he han e i o ial c i e ia. (8) A mo e ecen example: he exis ence o a p e ended “pos libe al democ acy" (Bowles- Gin is 1986). (9) We do no use he e he mo e es ic i e meaning o he concep o poli ical pa adigm employed by Raschke, B and and O e, which allows a dis inc ion be ween an "old" and a "new" pa adigm in libe al democ acies om he in asion o he "new social mo emen s". In he wo ds o O e: "A poli ical pa adigm pe mi s answe s o in e ela ed ques ions such as: a) Wha a e he main con en s and hemes o collec i e ac ion?; b) Who a e he ac o s and in wha way do hey become collec i e ac o s?; c) Wha a e he app op ia e p ocesses, ac ics and ins i u ional me hods o dealing wi h con lic ?" (O e 1988:243 n. 1. T ansla ed by he au ho ). I hink he dis inc ion be ween pa adigm and p og am o esea ch pe mi s a be e classi ica ion o di e en "models" o democ acy om a poli ical science poin o iew. I allows, o example, he sepa a ion o he nine di e en models a gued by D. Held as sub ypes o wo basic pa adigms: a pa icipa ion p elibe al pa adigm (models I, IIIa, IV, VIII), and a ep esen a i e libe al pa adigm (models II, IIIb, V, VI, and VII) (Held 1987). (10) In his amous con e ence o 1819, Cons an a gued: "Bu as he libe y ha we need is di e en om ha o he ancien G eeks, his libe y equi es a di e en , o ganiza ion om ha which was sui able o he ancien libe y. In his he mo e ime and he mo e ene gy ha man dedica ed o he exe cise o his poli ical igh s, he mo e ee he belie ed he was. In he ype o libe y ha co esponds o us, his will be mo e p ecious when he exe cise o poli ical igh s lea es mo e ime o pu sue p i a e a ai s" (T ansla ed by he au ho ). (11) In his way, he acilla ions o Tocque ille a e unde s andable a he poin o comp ehending "democ acy" as compa ible o no wi h "libe y" (wi h he libe al idea o libe y). Only when socialism appea s as a i al in he poli ical o ganiza ion o he Eu opean coun ies does i main ain a possible compa ibili y o "democ acy" and "libe y", e ising his p e ious opinion de ended in De la Democ a ie en Ame ique (1835). Bu in ac he a icula ion be ween libe al and democ a ic dimensions his o ically ein o ced he ule o law in he libe al democ a ic sys ems (Sa o i 1987). (12) This e m comes om he analysis o he Spanish ansi ion in he 1970s, con ained in he s udy coo dina ed by O'Donnell, Schmi e and Whi ehead (1986). (13) I ha e de eloped his poin in a ecen book (Requejo 1990). (14) F om he 1980s i could be a gued ha he e exis s a ou h dimension, he Pos ma e ialis , a icula ed a ound he alues o au onomy and c i ical solida i y. I is also a dimension dis inc om he p e ious ones ha comes associa ed wi h he "new social mo emen s" (ecological, paci is , eminis , e c) de ending a clea an i-au ho i a ian componen in he concep o "ci izenship" and o indi idual emancipa ion. Following he Ame ican and Eu opean mo emen s o he la e 1960s, a c i ical a i ude in he ace o uncon olled p oduc ion, he echnoc a ic eason and he bu eauc a iza ion p ocess, an a i ude ha b eaks some o he basic p ecep s o he "socie y o labou " (Habe mas) implici ly admi ed by he conse a i e, libe al, social-democ a ic and Ma xis o ganiza ions. The poli ical economy is no longe he emancipa i e science. In his dimension, he cul u al elemen s displace he cen ali y occupied by he s ic ly economic o poli ical elemen s. I is no so much i claims wha we wan o li e bu how we wan o li e. In his sense, i is a change wi h ega d o how he quali y o li e should be unde s ood. Anyway, he weaknesses o hese mo emen s can be desc ibed as ollows: hei link o a s ic logic o opposi ion a ound a single claim conside ed "non nego iable" (O e), he anali ical de iciences in which he allacy o abs ac ion is e y o en p esen , an a i ude o "e hicali y" ha ma ginalizes he echnoc a ic aspec o a ionali y. All his makes he pos ma e ialis dimension appea o be su ounded by di icul ies a he poin o in luencing he policies o he h ee “classical" componen s o libe al democ acies since he Second Wo ld Wa . (15) In his sense I hink ha Apel's p e ensions o making a “ a ional econs uc ion o he uni e sal ounda ions o e hics" (in a kan ian pe spec i e) has sense -in spi e o some "pos mode n" posi ions-, howe e in he s ic poli ical sphe e his heo y has inhe en limi a ions. He needs o pu oge he wo di e en a ional logics, he ins umen al and