20 Norberto Bobbio Democrac > Bobbio Tealian intellectuals in Turi Which Socialism? (1976), The Future of Democracy Liberalism and Democracy (1988), and Left and Right (1994), Bobbio sought to combine a 0 Bobbio all of comm nd political justi taken fiom his Liberalism and Deme Although liberal and democratic ideals have gr nse ofthe ly fa ruven liberalism and democra troubled history, the opposition sttong as ever, and may even in recent years be said to have grown more acute in certain respects Icis an opposition kept alive and intensified by a fact that vened during the second half of che last century: the entry into the political arena of the work ers’ movement, which increasingly drew its inspiration ftom socialist doctrines. ‘These latter were antithetical to those of liberalism, although the democratic method was not rejected not, at any rate, by a large part of the movemenperto Bobbio 335 \hich inchuded the English Labour Party, the German Social Democrats, and the ‘eformist wing generally. As we have seen, liberalism and democracy hav ficult and contentious to been radically antithetical, even though it proved graft democratic ideals on to the original stock of liberal aspirations, and ev though where liberalism and democracy have come together the process has been slow, painful opposed to liberalism from the beginning and not mi uneven, Socialism, on the other hand, clearly appeared as 1 its Marxist or mane sant guise, The bone of contention was economic liberty, which presupposes an nany different defi "unyielding commitment to private property. Despite the tions which have been given of socialism over the last century, there is one cx terion which consistently, distinctively and definitely marks it off from othe: ttines: namely, the critique of private property as the principal source of equalities among men’ (to use the words of Rousseau’s celebrated Discour and the view that che tozal or partial elimination of private property was the goal of the society of the furure, Most socialist writers, and most of the movements ified Neral hey have inspired, have i ightly or wrongly though cer ainly rightly in purely historical terms) with a commitment to defend economic eedom and thus individual property as its sole guarantee, this being regarded a form of freedom essential to the flourishing of any other forms. The socialist movement inherited from bourgeois theories of history a class-based conception of history, according to which classes are the leading historical subjects and his ansition from the rule of one corical development comes about through the class to that of another. In this conception, liberalism, understood as th that economic liherty is the foundation of all other liberties and that no man ¢ d to be regarded by socialist writer n the and not only by Mars, though it was Marx's influence that predomin: formation of the continental socialist parties, especially in Germany and Italy) as nothing more than the ideology of the bourgeois class the ideology, in other words, of the opposing party with which the socialists would until they were finaly eliminated. While the relation between liberalism and socialism was one of clear antith esis (whether the criterion was socialism’s project for the fe status as the ideology of a class destined, in the course of historical progress, to seen socialism and democracy take the place ofthe bourgeoisie), the relation be: herto held between democracy and was complementary, like thar which liberalism. Though reckoned incompatible with liberalism, socialism gradually Two arguments were came to be thought of as congruent with democ: advanced in support of this conception of their compatible, even complementary ath 0, oF at any rate foster, the as democratization proceeded so it status. In the first place, it was claim would inevitably leadbased on the transformation of the institution of private property and on the col lectivization of at least the principal means of production. Secondly, it was argued that only by way o .dvent of socialism could participation in politcal life be strengthened and enlarged, and democracy fally realized, Among the promises held out by such a democracy, moreover, was that of an equal (or at any more equal) distribution not only of political but of economic power, and this was something that a merely liberal democracy could never have affered. These two theses were the basis of the claim that democracy and socialism were indis. solubly linked: the main strands of the socialist movement saw this link as a necessary condition for the creation of a socialist society, while demo movements saw itasa condition of the development of democracy itself ‘This is nor to suggest that the relationship between democracy and socialism was always peaceful. Indeed, it mirrored that between liberalism and democracy in being, around certain issues, quite frequently and openly contestatory. Dem racy and socialism, it was clear, rein one another in a circular relatior from which point on this circle should one attempt ate change? To begin by widening the scope of democracy implied che acceptance of a gradual and uncertain process of development. Was it possible, desirable and legitimate t. ake the opposite approach to set out at once on the path of socialist transforma ion of society, by way of qualitative, revolutionary bresk which would involve atleast a temporary suspension of the methods of democracy? Thus it was that om the second half of the last century onwards, the conilict between liberalism and democracy was overlaid by a new opposition between the defenders of lib sral democracy, on the one hand, who often formed common cause against socialism (which they regarded as the negation of both liberalism and democ racy} and, on the other hand, the socialists, both democratic and non-democratic, ‘These in turn were divided not over their attitude to liberalism, which the agreed in opposing, but by their judgement of the validity and efficacy of democ racy, at least in the immediate aftermath of the conquest of power. Howevei such douibts about the appropriateness of democratic methods during the so called transition period never in any way negated che fundamental democrat spiration ofthe socialist parties, based as this was on a conviction that democ icy would best be advanced ina socialist society and that the latter would prov the long run more democratic than a liberal society which has sprung up and with che bizth a fhe been nurtured alon, Surveying the vast literature ast century, we can identify at least three arguments advanced in support of this view that socialist democracy is prefe able to liberal democracy: (a) Liberal democracy—or, in more polemical terms, capitalist democracy and (with regard to the historical subject whe it into being) bourgeois democracy came into existence as representativedemocracy, with elected representatives unfettered by any mandate; while socialist or, in class terms, proletarian democracy is vo be a direct democracy, in che double sense either of a democracy of all the people without representatives orelse ofa democracy based, not on representatives, but on mandated delegates subject co recall, (b) Bourgeois democracy has allowed people to participate in political both central and local, through the extension of the suffrage £0 the point where all men and women enjoy the vote; but only socialist democ racy will allow chem to participate also in decisions on economic matters, which in capitalist society aze taken autocratically. In this sense, socialist democracy represents not just a more active participation, but a quantitative extension of participation through the opening up of new spaces for the exercise of that pop- ular sovereignty which constitutes the essence of democracy, (c) Finally, and bove all, iberal democracy offers the right to participate directly or indirectly n political decisions, but this is not paralleled by any increased equality in the distribution of economic power, with the result that the right to vote often smounts to nothing more than a mirage. Socialist democracy, by contrast, holds more equal distribution of economic power to be one of the prime aims of the thanges which it aims to institute in the economic regime, and thus transforms the formal power to participate into @ real and substantial power, at the same ime bringing democracy itself to its ideal fulfilment, a greater equality among The fact that the democratic ideal has been embraced by both the liberal movement and by the antithetical socialist movement, with the result that both liberal-democratic and social democratic governments have come into being though as yet no socialist- democratic government; we have yet to see a regime which is both democratic and socialist), might incline one to conclude that for the last wo centuries democracy has figured as a kind of common denominator among all the regimes that have developed in che economically and politically advanced countries. However, we should not automatically assume that the concept of democracy has remained unaltered in the passage ftom liberal to social democracy, Inthe liberalism-democracy couple, democracy means above al universal suffrage, and thus a means whereby particular individuals can freely express their will, In the socialism-democracy coupling, it signifies above all the cgalitarian ideal, which can only be achieved by the property reforms proposed by socialism. In the former case demo: a consequence, in the latter itis presupposition. As a consequence, it is the political liberty which follows from and completes the series of more particular liberties; as a presupposition, it remains to be completed, and can only be completed under the changed condi sions which socialism aspires to create through the transformation of capitalistThe ambiguous nature of the concept of democracy is very manifest in the so-called ‘social democracy,’ which has been the architect of the ‘welfare stat Social democracy claims to represer eon liberal democracy in that its -laration of rights embraces social rights as well as rights to liberty; with respect to socialist democracy, on the other hand, it claims only to be a first phase, The ambiguity has been reflected in the double-edged nature of the ct que which it has elicited, with intransigent liberals on the right claiming that it diminishes the liberty of the individual, while on the left, impatient socialists onder idandne which, far from favouti nnit asa compromise betwee -ealization of socialism, hinders or renders it altogether inoperable a