More Discourses

Continuing with Dryzek’s descriptions of political discourses, this week was focused primarily on administrative rationalism and democratic pragmatism. I think that the best way to differentiate between the two is conveniently provided by the chapter titles “Leave it to the Experts” and “Leave it to the People”. The first discourse dictates that government appointed experts in the field should delegate environmental policy. The second, that governments and corporations should democratically respond to public opinion.

In discussing the drawbacks to the two discourses, I realized how I have observed their effects in every day life, particularly of democratic pragmatism. One of its drawbacks is a somewhat deceptive response of corporations in order to placate public demands called “green washing”. With the demand for “green” products on the rise, corporations may mislead consumers by claiming a product is environmentally friendly when other aspects of it may not be at all. For example, the label on a box of green tea I bought the other day assured me that each tea bag was biodegradable. When I got home and opened the box I realized that each biodegradable tea bag was individually wrapped in (obviously non-biodegradable) cellophane. In the case of administrative rationalism, agencies developed to develop environmental policy may be ineffective when the “experts” manning them benefit from the very industries they are supposed to keep in check, or when agencies do not communicate and counteract each other’s actions.

It may be that the only way to effectively over come these two discourses’ shortcomings is to combine them. Allowing for transparency of the policies created by the agencies installed by administrative rationalism will create more accountability for failed policies and agencies. Using administrative rationalism to ensure that the public has an informed opinion would prevent a “tyranny of the majority”.