IMG#13

leming ficult to ipetent of eco-r Dahl id the corre-ping in r their power >em to grim, ration nomie ivern-egula-

:s and i con-n and i cor-would il and stance Iself-mbers given there rncep-isocia-ole of suring itizens demo-ure of aecha-iies to tsuring irds of

Associative Principles and Democratic Reform 25

I democratic institutions would have a morę limited set of tasks to I do than at present in superyising government bureaucracies, not I least because associations’ members would police and control I them themselves, but, in consequence, they would have a greater I capacity to carry out those tasks than do overburdened super-I visory institutions in omnicompetent public service States. Such I States seek to perform simultaneously two contradictory tasks, to I provide services and to police the provision of these services.

Associationalism would alter the balance of the public and the I private spheres. At present, participation in the public sphere [ is declining because modem large-scale mass democracies and I bureaucratic States are remote, minimize participation, and are I ineffective at providing the services citizens reąuire. At the same | time the private sphere has shrunk under the dual pressures of

II State intervention and compulsion, and of corporate power over | employees and consumers. Associative democracy by ‘publicizing*

[ the private sphere, through democratically-controlled voluntary | associations, would not trespass on individuals* liberties, but I would enhance them by providing citizens with greater control I of their affairs in the economy and in welfare. The point is that I unless civil society is given certain ‘political’ attributes through | self-goveming associations that perform public functions, then | it will be difficult to preserve its autonomy, sąueezed as it has i been by hierarchical administration. Associative reform would I not threaten liberał freedoms by inereasing the scope of social i govemance through voluntary associations, sińce those associa-| tions are independent and self-governing. Thus it is ąuite unlike Ł=a totalitarian schemes of compulsory political mobilization of vol-1-^ untary bodies, or authoritarian corporatist schemes to bureau-Bi) cratize civil society and to compel individuals to be represented through collective agencies.

One reason why liberał democratic theorists have not adopted jEs associative ideas is because they still see the State as the cen-BS trał political community. Voluntary associations are regarded in p. modern liberał democratic theory primarily in terms of their role BSś) as the social foundation of a pluralistic politics, that is they provide pk articulation for the divergent interests in civil society and thereby JM prevent any tendency toward the formation of potentially tyranni-| cal homogeneous majorities. Such voluntary bodies are viewed as ‘secondary associations* and as important because they ensure the