Contents - Index

2.1.   What is a "Democracy?"                                        (Top)

A rule-of-thumb definition of democracy is a system characterized by an open society, an independent news media, and regular and meaningful elections.  Elections are alternatives to direct democracy which is generally thought to be impossible or undesirable.  Whether a system has regular meaningful elections is the criterion by which democratic systems are distinguished from dictatorships.  A dictatorship is generally defined as a government that is not constitutionally and legally elected and does not have an open society and independent media.

A more focused definition of a democracy is that it is a "government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."  Abraham Lincoln put it simply:  "Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."  Other more complete descriptions of systems specify the rules, such as government by the majority while protecting the rights of all minorities.

Typologies and semantics have always plagued the study of political systems. While people tend to agree on what constitutes a dictatorship, there is some wrangling over  whether to call representative systems "democracies." If representative systems are democracies, then what do we call systems that are completely responsive to all of their citizens or at least have high levels of citizen involvement?  Some scholars suggest that the word "democracy" should be reserved for systems that are completely responsive to all citizens and to give different names to anything else that is not a dictatorship.  Robert Dahl identifies three categories of political systems that are not dictatorships and not democracies.  The closest to the ideal of democracies are "polyarchies" and the two in between dictatorships and polyarchies are "competitive oligarchies" and "inclusive hegemonies."  

Other theorists have held that the distinction between polyarchy and democracy is not sharply drawn and that there are gradations of participation between polyarchy and pure democracy.  These theorists generally accept that direct democracy is impossible in a large population and that some form of representation and countervailing powers is necessary.  However, they insist that participation can be greatly extended to lower levels and smaller units.  This kind of system is sometimes called "participatory democracy."  While it is generally accepted that there are no real-life examples of "true democracy," there is considerable controversy whether there are any examples of participatory democracy, at least on a large scale and of any permanence.  Large-scale participatory democracies are an unrealized ideal as are true democracies.

To avoid unnecessary semantic complications, we will use the word "democracy" and "democratic system" in their more general and popular sense.  Even Robert Dahl uses the concept of "degrees of democratization." Moreover, as useful as it was in context, his concept of "polyarchy" did not stick.  Instead of reserving the word "democratic" for systems that don't exist, we will use it for any form of political system that is not a dictatorship.  We will distinguish among democratic systems and the same political system at different times by the degree of democratization.  Taking the lead of Dahl and others, "degree of democratization" will be treated on two dimensions, "liberalization" and "inclusion," where "liberalization" refers to the range and diversity of issues and options tolerated in the political arena and where "inclusion" refers to the relative numbers of people in the system who are able to express preferences with the expectation that they will influence political decisions.  

This approach coincided with practice where we find types of democracy, such as "liberal democracy" and "populist democracy," the former being higher on the open competition of ideas than inclusion and the latter being the opposite.  We also have "representative democracies" and "constitutional democracies," both of which unless otherwise qualified are liberal democracies.  For the "potential" of systems with unprecedentedly high degrees of inclusion, we will use the term "participatory democracy."

This framework makes sense of many age-old controversies because advancement on one dimension, such as inclusion, may not be harmonious with advancement on the other.  Theorists have even talked about "democracy" (meaning inclusion) being the enemy of liberal democracy (referring to diversity of admissible issues and options).  Of particular relevance to this research project, we also can talk about healthy and ailing democracies.  We hope that democracies will progress on both dimensions of democratization.  Ailing systems are those that backslide on liberalization or inclusion or both.  

What is fascinating about the controversy over what should properly be called a "democracy" is that the controversy exists at all given that there is not even a single example of a large-scale "true democracy" in the world.  As Dahl puts it, "... while democrats describe many different visions of what the next stage of democratization should be, so far no country has transcended polyarchy to a "higher" stage of democracy." (Democracy and its Critics.)  The extraordinary determination to make room in our political lexicon and problem definition for systems with (so far unattained) large-scale citizen participation is a testimonial to some deep yearning to realize not just the figurative but the literal meaning of "government by the people."  Moreover,  scholars world-wide increasingly see more participation as the ONLY antidote to "system creep" toward despotism and the only independent check on governments, corporations, and other wielders of power.


Previous  Next


To Comment Click Here

Comments

Note
Robert Dahl defines a "democracy" as a political system that is completely responsive to all of its citizens, adding that it is a totally "ideal" system in the sense that there are no examples past or present and may, in fact, be impossible.  Instead, he places existing and possible systems on a two dimensional continuum between dictatorships and polyarchies, where polyarchies are systems with high levels of "public contestation" (liberalization) and high levels of "inclusiveness" (citizen participation).  In this framework, systems can be high on liberalization and low on participation and vice versa, thereby describing two kinds of systems that are not dictatorships,but are short of being polyarchies.

Note
Unfortunately, these arguments provide no persuasive means for achieving those worthy ends.  In many respects, this model is an example of the prevailing top-down political culture about which we will have much to say later in this discussion.  In brief, we argue that top-down efforts to promote participation are doomed to failure and that the only way participation will grow is from the bottom up.

Note
Sometimes the word "democracy" is linked to ideals, such as "equality."  The word "Democratic" is even used as a modifier of a programmatic end, as in "democratic socialism." However, the equal or fair distribution of wealth and power itself is not a description of "democracy."  Democracy is not the end-state, it is the process by which end-states are achieved.   Of course, the process and the ends are related because the ultimate measure of any political system beyond providing security to its citizens is how well it creates wealth, distributes it equitably under conditions of scarcity and balances one against the other.  Imbalance between the creation and distribution of wealth inevitably creates serious social, economic, and political problems, such as problems of legitimacy and instability.  Also, an important condition of democracy is political  equality and it is difficult to imagine genuinely equal or fair distribution of wealth without high levels of political equality and vice versa.

Note
To achieve that balance, a democracy requires the free competition of ideas, which, in turn, requires freedom of speech and the ability to criticize those in power without fear of retribution. In an effective representative democracy, power must also be distributed to several points of authority to enable checks and balances and reconcile competing interests.



References

 Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (University of Chicago Press: 1956).
Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and its Critics (Yale University Press: 1989).
Greenberg, Douglas, Stanley N. Katz, Melanie Beth Oliviero, Steven C. Wheatley (Eds.),  Constitutionalism and Democracy: Transitions in the Contemporary World (Oxford  University Press: New York, 1993).
Hacker, Andrew, Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science (Macmillan Company: New York,  1961)
 Held, David, Models of Democracy
Kernell, Samuel & Steven S. Smith, (Eds.) Principle and Practice of American Politics: Classic and  Contemporary Readings (CQ Press: Washington, D.C., 2000).
Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government (Liberal Arts Press, New York,  1958).

(Top)