CBC Massey Lectures: The Real World of Democracy

by Crawford Brough Macpherson

In his 1964 CBC Massey Lectures C. B. Macpherson examines the rival ideas of democracy - the communist, Third World, and Western-liberal variants - and their impact on one another. He suggests that the West need not fear any challenge to liberal democracy if it is prepared to re-examine and alter its own values.

Genres: Politics, History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays

112 pages, ebook

First published September 30, 1972

About the author

Macpherson was an influential Canadian political scientist who taught political theory at the University of Toronto.

Macpherson was born on 18 November 1911 in Toronto, Ontario. He graduated from the University of Toronto in 1933. After earning an MSc in economics at the London School of Economics where he studied under the supervision of Harold Laski, he joined the faculty of the University of Toronto in 1935. At that time a PhD in the social sciences was uncommon, but some twenty years later he submitted a collection of sixteen published papers to the London School of Economics and was awarded the DSc in economics. These papers were then published in 1953 edition as the book, Democracy in Alberta; the theory and practice of a quasi-party system. In 1956 he became a Professor of Political Economy at the University of Toronto.

Macpherson's best-known contribution to political philosophy is the theory of "possessive individualism", in which an individual is conceived as the sole proprietor of his or her skills and owes nothing to society for them.

Reviews

[Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lectures from 1965 that I still found very informative. This book gave me new perspective on the idea of democracy, and how it is manifested in the world. A lot of value for only 67 pages! A mix of political science, economics, history, and philosophy.

"So, as soon as we recognize that [people] are in fact unequal in strength and skill, we have no alternative but to put up with the fact that some will get more. You may say that we have to put up with it, even though it makes some [people] less human than others. If we leave [people] at all free in their human capacity as appropriators we must acquiesce in the denial of full humanity to a substantial part of mankind. If we refuse to permit this denial of humanity we have to set up another denial: we have to deny [people] the freedom to try to satisfy their naturally unlimited desires by the acquisition of property. And this also appears as a denial of humanity. There does not seem much hope of avoiding one contradiction or the other. Either way, to assert full humanity is to deny it."

[Ann Lee]

This volume comprises of six lectures and was published in 1965. Some of the political conditions in the world has changed since then, namely the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, but the historical framework and theoretical content may be used to extrapolate a description of societies in the world today. All five previous lectures were given succinct summary in the sixth lecture, for which I'll provide some orientation here.

On the global stage (in the 60's), there are three types of democracies, the ideas underlying each are now in competition with one another. In the west, we have the liberal democracy. This democracy did not rise up directly from the ideal; rather, it came about out of necessity from the liberal and capitalist state which rose first. In the Soviet Union is the communist and non-liberal democracy. There, a vanguard arose to facilitate the transition of a class society into a non-classed society. In the underdeveloped non-liberal societies, such as recently liberated states in Africa, single party democracies were erected. The different political realities and the ideas underlying them are now in competition in such a way that we must question what it is that our democracy is aiming for and what values in our democracy we treasure most and must keep.

Something in common between the different forms of democracy is the ultimate goal of enabling each citizen to pursue and realize their full human potential. What are different between liberal and non-liberal democracies include the belief whether the goal could be achieved through a market-driven economy as is the case in liberal democracies.

An interesting point is that the market societies were built on the concept of scarcity. However, as automation vastly increased the amount of material production, the concept is becoming obsolete and can no longer function as a driving force for human endeavors. As automation is possible in the most advanced liberal societies as well in other societies, other polities do not view competition in the market as the necessary mediating force that secures liberties for all. Hence, the capitalist society is not needed before building one where each member could realize his potential.

The conclusion highlights the importance of moral advantage in determining which type of democracy will prevail. The determining factor would involve which polity can best secure for its citizens equal freedom to realize their essential humanity. The lecture ends on the need for advanced societies to contribute massive aid to underdeveloped countries; only actions of this sort will preserve their moral status in the eyes of the world.

I have skipped over many important points here. I think this book is worth reading if you are interested in seeing that the Western liberal democracy is in fact not the only type of democracy possible. Indeed, other polities have followed their unique historical trajectories. Their members believe, as we do, that their form of democracy is the best one. These lectures provide some essential points about how various types of democracy differ in their historical circumstances and strategic directions. The author admits that this book raises more questions than it answers, but it is a great introduction to how various democracies have manifested within the last century and how they differ from one another.

[Colin Welch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This 1965 Massey Lecture was the first piece of political philosophy I ever read, and it stood up fairly well to a recent re-read. Despite its somewhat cringe-inducing discussion of Soviet "democracy", Macpherson's pithy analysis of the rise of western democracy is, in my opinion, the gold standard on the topic. His discussion of the intrinsic economic element of liberalism (i.e. economic liberalism, aka capitalism) is also excellent. Short of time? Chapters 1 and 5 are the best.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting insights but in many ways, terribly dated

[Tam Nguyen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though his idea sounds desirable, it is deeply flawed because of its prediction that human can realize their own potentiality by being equal in a non-liberal democratic government. I highly disagree with this claim.