Is Popular Sovereignty a Viable Reality or a Noble Lie?

Student
Professor
Course
Date
Is Popular Sovereignty A Viable Reality Or A Noble Lie?
Introduction
The parliamentary representative government has been Europe’s most dominant version of governance since the eighteenth century. The factors that triggered the establishment of European representative governments were the spread of education and wealth and the growth of a prosperous middle class. Consequently, the inception of intellectual politics paved the way for the massive popularity of the parliamentary government in almost all of Europe (Mosca 253). The republican form of government has two bifurcations; the first one is based on the theoretical framework of Montesquieu, called liberalism.
This form of representative government seeks dissolution and separation of power in three tiers, and it is against bureaucratic absolutism (Mosca 254). On the other hand, the democratic form of government, based on Rousseau’s philosophy, assigns the legal right of political power to people elected by a majority of public consensus (Mosca 254). In this way, both forms of representative governments consider popular sovereignty the sole proof of the legitimacy of a government.
After establishing a democratically sovereign government in the eighteenth century, the development and evolution of this model of governance produced several modifications and theoretical manifestations, which led to the formation of modern social democracy. The doctrine of popular sovereignty gained considerable credence throughout its history since the appeal of its principle of universal suffrage has been undeniable even to its strongest opponents (Mosca 332). The power of natural truth inherent in the doctrine of democracy, which acknowledges only popular sovereignty, compels its opponent to follow it to gain power and authority. Moreover, people's might also discourages any form of theoretical or practical opposition in the form of anti-democratic coalitions and forces them to pay homage to democratic principles (Mosca 334). Hence, popular sovereignty still holds its sway as a viable reality.
Despite the widespread popularity of democratic and representative governments, theoretical and practical opposition has risen in recent years. One of those critics is Gaetano Mosca, who suggests that popular sovereignty acquired through suffrage involves political bickering, prolix speeches, and hollow promises, which render the whole system based on hollow presuppositions. Moreover, (Mosca 255). Moreover, he suggests that wealth disparity has made it possible for the wealthy class to rule over the masses under the pretext of popular sovereignty. Likewise, excessive interference of the minority ruling class in state matters triggers suppression of the rights of common people (Mosca 255). This criticism of political parties and the democratic political system provides valuable philosophical and theoretical ground to validate that popular sovereignty is a noble lie.
Another political scientist, Robert Michels, reveals other loopholes of popular democracy lying in its system; for this purpose, he argues that democracy is inherently an oligarchical system in which a faction of influential people holds sway over the majority (Michels 224). To add, Mos...