IMG#10

22 Associative Principles and Democratic Reform

public power and of the devolved associationally-governed activi-ties would be possible.    -V    ^c0

Economic liberals have attempted to address these problemg I ^c0 of accountability and the scalę of govemment by reducing the i 8° activities performed by the State, reducing both public provision I ^c0 and public regulation of the wider society. They have sought to I ^W1 privatize and to deregulate activities, but in doing so they have ^bl typically handed these activities over to undemocratic and un-accountable bodies, either quasi-public bureaucratic agencies or I hierarchically-managed business corporations. Associative de- ^ mocracy is not like economic liberalism, although both advocate f g that the State should shed certain functions. Associationalism does _ir not aim to reduce either social provision or economic govern- I \[ ance, but to change their form of organization. It devolves the performance and administration of public functions to voluntaiy    I    q

bodies that are accountable both to their members and to the    I    d

public power. What would conventionally be regarded as ‘private’    I    b

agencies undertake public functions, but, unlike the agencies    I    h

created by economic liberał reforms, they are accountable to    I    ti

those for whom the service or activity is provided. The administra-    I    F

tion of such voluntary bodies is doubly answerable: directly to    i    H

their membership through their members’ rights to participate    I    I

in, and to exit from, associations and, for the performance of    i    d

publicly-funded activities, to common political institutions com-    I    tl

posed of elected representatives and appointed officials like    I    c

judges or inspectors. Associative democracy aims at a manage-    |    a

able and accountable State, but not an under-govemed society.    I    ti

Associationalism does not strip down and diminish the public    I    r<

sphere as economic liberalism does, but actually revitalizes it and    I    o

extends it.    P

Associationalists are not the only critics of the present balance I between State and civil society, this too is the concem of thought- I P ful liberał democrats. Thus Noberto Bobbio and Robert Dahl, I ^C1 without doubt the two most accomplished contemporary demo- I P cratic theorists, argue that democracy is endangered when the 1    °

pluralism and autonomy of civil society is threatened by un* } accountable hierarchically-controlled power. The problem for classical liberał democrats is that democratic government based ^ on accountability to the individual Citizen means little if the great bulk of economic affairs are controlled by large privately-owned