Collective Action Goals
Q 1
Collective action problems, or the pursuit of a goal or set of goals by more than one person to achieve an outcome is essentially what modern day politics is about. In modern day politics there is a need for a modern state. A state is a structure of rules and institutions, and a set of expectations by people as to how collective actions will be performed. (Shively 2007 ch3) The state is a very effective way to organise power. Collective action can best be seen through the use of the prisoner's dilemma. If parties act together or cooperate they can achieve the best possible outcome. This is only beneficial if many contribute rather then nobody. If all parties or persons concerned have an incentive to free ride, then there is no provision to ride, and therefore nothing will ever be achieved. (Shively 2007 ch3)
Both personal and collective considerations must be taken into account for collective actions. Individuals or parties assess the selective costs and benefits of participation, and they weigh up the value of collective goals against the likelihood of achieving those goals through action. (Schrager 1985) A good example of this would be voting. This is a clear case for collective action for the mutual benefit of all those who support a particular candidate or whose interests would further be enhanced by a candidates election.
The state on the other hand, and the availability of public goods, take control in order to prevent free riding, and act as a device to provide public goods. Citizens are willing to have their economic activities co-ordinated by the state. The state can force the people to pay taxes, and then use these taxes to pay for the public goods. Providing public goods can only be solved by the use of power, and with coercion, persuasion and the use of shaming being the most effective methods, with the government acting on behalf of the state. (Shively 2007 ch3 pp49) In this model, co-operative behaviour will prevail if the prospect of punishment is sufficient to deter those from seeking gains.
In conclusion, I feel that politics is essentially about how to resolve collective action problems. The reason I feel this is for the following reasons. Living in a democratic society, the people decide on the representatives that they wish to have in power. This is in the form of a public representative and usually a member of a political party, which in turn forms governments. These representatives are charged by the people to make decisions on our behalf's for the greater good of the society we live in. As governments are usually made up of more then one party with many different agenda's in mind, it is essential that these parties or groups resolve collective action problems in a political manner, and with the needs of the citizens that they represent in mind. Ireland would be a good example of this. Ireland's democratically elected government, which is made up of parties, both in power and in opposition must come together to solve collective actions problems in order for the smooth running and future prosperity of the country. Failing this co-operation, the people then have the right to re-elect new representatives in order to promote change and greater co-operation. This in turn can help to solve collective action problems.
Q 2
The phrase tyranny of the majority when used in discussions of modern democracy and democratic systems is a criticism of the scenario of majority rule. Whereby decisions made by a majority under this system, would place that majority's interest so far above a minority's interest, that it would be compared with being tyrannical. A tyranny of the majority in a democracy can sometimes lead to a belief that the majority is not always right, but can be hard to avoid in certain circumstances. The use of a constitution, can limit a governments power so as to preserve the economic growth of an economy and to stop certain decisions from being made without the need for a referendum. (Shively 2007 ch8)
When looking at the two statements listed in the question. It can be said that the two statements are quite different. “Every decision that majority agrees upon is legitimate”. I feel that this is not the case. The reason I feel this, is quite straightforward. One party states, which usually have their origins from military coups can make decisions based on what their perceived outcome should be. There is no opposition to these decisions, and most often these decisions are made with self-interest at heart. What usually distinguishes these states from a tyrannical leader is that they usually have a large party following. Previous examples of this would have been the former USSR and China. (Shively 2007 ch8 pp194) Democratically elected governments, which hold a large majority can also be an example of this. Due to they're large majority and no means of opposition. Decisions can be made through self-interest, which might not be agreed upon by the citizens that they represent. These decisions can turn out to be wrong in many cases, and due to the fact that a government decides these decisions without consultation with the people, I would feel that they would not be legitimate.
From the other statement “only decisions approved by the majority are legitimate”, I would have to agree with this. The prime example would be through the use of a referendum. The outcome of referendums is important because it adds legitimacy to popular approval. (Shively 2007 ch8 pp199) It further backs up the statement that decisions approved by the majority are legitimate. These decisions have been made by the people, through democratic voting, and normally represent the wishes of the majority.
In conclusion, democracy should not be a tyranny of the majority, but sometimes it can be hard to avoid in certain circumstances. In my opinion, the best way to approach decisions would be through informed thinking and analysing information that is presented before me. I then have the option to make up my own mind, as do the rest of the people concerned with making the same decision. Therefore I would feel that the statement that “only decisions made by the majority are legitimate” holds true.
Bibliography
Shively W. P. 2007 Power & Choice. 10th Edition. McGraw Hill
Schrager L. S. 1985. Private Attitudes and Collective Action [Online] available from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(198512)50%3A6%3C858%3APAACA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
