|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Details May
2002 In the aftermath of September 11, this country experienced a wave of patriotism stronger than any seen since the Second World War. However, amidst all the flags, the choruses of "God Bless America," and the unwavering support for the troops in the battle against terrorism, Robert Dahl, Sterling Professor Emeritus of Political Science, wants to make certain that a crucial element of democracy is not lost. "I know I'm a patriot," says Dahl, a WWII veteran who earned his doctorate at Yale in 1940 and has taught here since 1946, "but an important part of our commitment to this country is that we continue to think critically about what we have achieved and might yet achieve."
For more than a half-century in his courses, as well as in numerous articles and nearly two dozen books, Dahl has challenged students and readers to examine, warts and all, the tenets of the Constitution and the democracy that it spawned. In particular, the professor wants to engender debate about the best way to moving toward a citizenry composed of political equals. "Isn't it time -- well past time -- that we stop thinking of our Constitution as a sacred text and begin to think of it as nothing more, or less, than a means for achieving democratic goals?" Dahl asks. Many of the professor's central arguments are summed up in his most recent work, published in March by Yale University Press and titled How Democratic Is the American Constitution? The provocative book, much of it drawn from the Castle Lectures that Dahl presented in 2000, asks why we should continue to uphold what he calls "a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of 55 mortal men, actually signed by only 39, and adopted in only 13 states by the votes of fewer than 2,000 men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten." Not only was the Constitution the work of a tiny minority, some of whom were clearly no fans of equality, but the finished document contained a variety of what Dahl calls "undemocratic elements." Some of the signatories were slaveholders, and in the beginning, the Constitution looked the other way on the issue of slavery. Universal suffrage was not a right, and such institutions as the electoral college and the Senate, both of which steer away from the democratic notion that power should reside directly in the hands of the people, were adopted by way of compromise to make the document palatable to the men who would be governed by it. To be sure, many of the more onerous provisions have been, says Dahl, "corrected by amendments that moved the Constitution in a more democratic direction." And, he continues, "the historic, if fitful, American impulse toward democracy and political equality has not come to an end." The professor's objective in his teaching, research, and writing is to help people see the product of the Framers of 1787 as a work in progress and take on the ongoing task of correcting the document.(Eliminating the electoral college would be a good place to start, he says.) "Democracy
is an impossible ideal, but it sets a standard that we could approach
more closely," says Dahl. "A constitution by itself cannot guarantee
democracy, but I hope my students may see the distance and help
determine how to close the gap." |
 |
||
|
||
|
|
Yale
Alumni Magazine, PO Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905. USA.
|