Defining and Conceptualising Democracy

Question 1

What is the basic meaning of democracy?

Answer 1

Demos – people; kratos – Power
Democratic system one in which ‘people‘ have ‘power‘
Democracy – rule of the people
Democracy – self-rule

Question 2

Gagnon 2021, in rescuing an abandond science says….

Answer 2

The study of democracy/democratisation is ‘in shambles’

He calls it an ‘abandoned’ science

Calls for ‘unshambling democracy’
‘The only way to navigate successfully this complicated terrain is to build separate databases. This will help us understand the meanings and practices embedded in each of these different words.’

Question 3

Saward 1994 said on democracy thah

Answer 3

“In essence, we need to justify more fulsomely our choice of principles. Defining democracy is a political act; the assumptions involved must be justified explicitly and convincingly to be of real value. What is needed is a definition of democracy which is not forged in theoretical isolation, but which is embedded in a theory which justifies and clarifies the concept of democracy as part of the process of definition.” (p.7)

Question 4

Saward 1994 defind democracy as

Answer 4

A political system is democratic to the extent that, and only to the extent that, it involves realization of responsive rule.” (p.14)
Democracy thus understood as “responsive rule” – chapter unpacks statement: 24(!) indices of democracy
Responsive rule strongly associated with “freedom” and “equality” - argument based on negative criterion (fallibilism)

Question 4

Saward‘s 1994 Negative Argument for Equality

Answer 4

‘No one person can rightly claim to have sufficiently broad or perpetual superior knowledge of either (a) the rightful course for a political community, or (b) the totality of a given citizen’s interests. Individuals and sub-groups must be taken to be the best judges of their own interests, not because of some inherent quality which they possess equally, but because of the absence of such a quality, or of our capacities to know such a quality’ (Saward, p.13).

*note that he explicitly criticizes Dahl’s attempt to justify equality (is his criticism correct?). He does not, however, reject equality, merely tries to find an alternative justification.

Question 5

Competing Values/Trade Off Principle of Saward 1994

Answer 5

Saward acknowledges that competing values is a tricky problem with no obvious trade-off principle:
‘We need-to consider a range of values, or political principles, that we can expect in theory (and which, in some cases, we know in practice) to operate at variance with the democratic principle. Arguably, the key ones to consider in a full analysis are: (a) political stability, (b) justice, (c) nationalism, (d) the environmental imperative and (e) efficiency. Is there a satisfactory trade-off principle to guide us when we are faced with conflicting principled demands? There is no such obvious principle.’

Question 6

Saward 1994 concludes that more democracy is not always a good thing…

Answer 6

Concludes with a reminder that more democracy is not always a good thing. He writes that (p.20).
‘Ever more democracy is not necessarily a good thing. We will want some stability as well at times, for example (assuming for the moment that the two might clash). Rarely, however, is this said explicitly. Ought we really to be frightened to suggest that we would ever want to be anything other than wholly democratic in our political logic and our political actions?’

Question 7

Whitehead 2002 on Democracy/Democratisation

Answer 7

Hesitant to present definition of democracy & democratisation
Emphasises contested nature of democracy + importance of context
Distances himself from positivist, quantitative conceptions of d&d

Question 8

Whitehead 2002 describes Democracy as an anchored but floating concept, what does that mean?

Answer 8

´Anchored but floating’ – core meaning of democracy that is anchored but margin of contestation that is floating
‘Democratization is best understood as a complex, long-term, dynamic, and open-ended process. It consists of progress towards a more rule-based, more consensual and more participatory type of politics. Like ‘democracy’ it necessarily involves a combination of fact and value, and so contains internal tensions.’ (p.29)

Question 9

Why does Whitehead 2002 describe Democray as Essentially Contested?

Answer 9

‘This reference to “struggle” highlights the fact that democracy is such a desirable label that control over its meaning necessarily becomes an object of political contestation. This “essential contestability” is a distinctive feature of our key political concepts, both because of the good or bad consequences for particular interests that will flow from adopting one meaning rather than another, and because although the concept has real substance, its meaning is not fixed by some extra-political authority (logic, incontestable evidence) to which ultimate appeal can be made.’
(Whitehead, pp.14-15)

Question 10

what does Whitehead 2002 mean with the ‘Spirit of Democracy‘?

Answer 10

‘Deliberation may give rise to a consensus on meaning (although it may also clarify the irrevocable nature of differences over meaning). But even if it does produce a consensus, it will be an agreement of a distinctively provisional and conditional kind. Agreement will only be so deep and only last for so long as the separate consciousnesses involved remain persuaded. In political life in general, and with regard to key political concepts in particular, there is never any definite “cut off point” beyond which the matter is settled beyond all further reconsideration.’
(Whitehead, pp.17-18)

Question 11

How does Dahl 1989 think a more sophisticated theory of democracy can be developed?

Answer 11

Dahl 1989 makes clear, that it is only through a thorough engagement with democracy’s critics that a more compelling and sophisticated ‘theory of democracy’ can be developed (p.5).

Question 12

What 5 different things can democracy mean according to Dahl 1989?

Answer 12

Dahl 1989 emphasises that democracy can mean at least 5 different things:
1. a distinctive set of political institutions and practices;
2. a particular body of rights;
3. a social and economic order;
4. a system that ensures desirable results;
or
5. a unique process of making collective and binding decisions.

Question 13

Dahl 1989 understands democracy primarily…..

Answer 13

…as a process of making collective and binding decisions (p.5); he also stresses, though, that this conception of democracy has ‘strong implications for the others’ (ibid).

Question 14

What does Dahl 1989 think is fundamental about democracy and why does it help to satisfy the basic human need for self-determination?

Answer 14

At the heart of his vision is the idea that democracy is fundamentally about participation in the political process, which, in turn, is a psychologically and socially crucial part of human existence -indeed, of what it means to be fully human

Thus, the bottom line of his participatory vision is that democracy is a process that allows for participation and thus satisfies a basic human need for self-determination

Question 15

How is Dahls´s 1989 Justification for Democracy as the best system based on its idea of equqlity and intrinsic worth?

Answer 15

Intrinsic equality deeply entrenched in ‘our’ morality and culture but suffers from grave weaknesses – we need to come to ‘strong equality’

Other ‘human needs’ are served by democracy better than by other forms of government: 1) Democracy as Instrumental to Maximum Feasible Freedom; 2) Democracy as Instrumental to Human Development; 3) Democracy as Instrumental to Protection of Personal Interests

‘To live under laws of one’s own choosing, and thus to participate in the process of choosing those laws, facilitates the personal development of citizens as social and moral beings and enables citizens to protect and advance their most fundamental rights, interests, and concerns. (p.91)
It is a quality without which human beings cease to be fully human and in the total absence of which they would not be human at all.’ (p.91)

Question 15

What are the four essential components that Dahl 1989 placed his theory of democracy on?

Answer 15

Vision of democracy based on four essential components:
Equality (“idea of strong equality” in chapter 7),
Personal autonomy (“presumption of personal autonomy” in chapter 7)
Procedural guarantees (chapter 8)
A radical notion of democratic inclusiveness (chapter 9)

Question 15

How does the idea of Dahls 1989 presumption of personal autonomy and how does it impact his justification for democracy as the best possible system?

Answer 15

Key to arrive at strong equality is ‘presumption of personal autonomy’

You are best judge of your interests as the other is always in disadvantaged position: does not know your interests (epistemological); does not pursue your interests (historical)

In the absence of a compelling showing to the contrary everyone should be assumed to be the best judge of his or her own good or interests’ (p.100).

Thus, you should have right to judge whether a policy is, or is not, in your own best interest.
Does not mean that you always get what you want. Means that no one can take away your right to say that this is what you want (rejection of guardianship)

Question 16

What 5 criterias are less justifications of democracy themselves but, taken together, constitute a system that makes the system democratic and are in line with strong equality, for Dahl 1989?

Answer 16

Provides following 5 criteria: 1) Effective Participation (p.109); 2) Voting Equality at the Decisive Stage (p.109); 3) Enlightened Understanding (p.111); 4) Control of the Agenda (p.112); 5) Inclusivity of the Demos (p.129)

Ideal standards culminate in ‘equal opportunity’. Equal opportunity is what emerges when five criteria are at least approximated. It is the end-result of the democratic process.

Question 17

What is the difference between democracy and polyarchy? According to Dahl 1989

Answer 17

Dahl sets out ‘ideal standards’ for the democratic process, which would ‘be a perfect democratic process’ (p.109). The more realistic vision is what he later calls ‘polyarchy’.

Question 18

Who has a rightful claim to be included in the demos? (p.119) And what might be reasonable justification for exclusions form the demos according to dahl 1989?

Answer 18

Inclusion means for him to have the rights of a citizen – which means, essentially, participation rights.
Discusses Schumpeter, Rousseau, Locke, Mill; all of whom have impoverished notion of inclusion (according to Dahl)
‘The demos must include all adult members of the association except transients and persons proved to be mentally defective’ (p.129)

Question 19

What are potential criticisms of Dahl 1989?

Answer 19

Potential criticism: Dahl says that presumption of personal autonomy is not absolute (‘it admits exceptions’, p.101). The burden of proof lies with the other. If this is true, then, the question is what ‘the other’ must do to prove that they are better equipped to know and defend your interest. The historical record, Dahl says, rules this out. But isn’t it the claim of Schumpeter and Brennan that, precisely because so many people are ignorant or not knowledgeable, they don’t know what is good for them? Isn’t there an implicit claim in their theories that they are able to prove that others are less ignorant? (to be discussed)

Question 20

What is Schumpeter‘s 1978 Basic Distinction?

Answer 20

Democracy as a supreme value in itself (“Classical Doctrine of Democracy”):
‘the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.’ (p.250).

Democracy as a method for the selection of leaders (“Democracy as Competition for Political Leadership”)
‘the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.’ (p.269)

Question 21

What are Schumpeters 1978 problems with the classical doctrin of democracy?

Answer 21

Redundancy of the idea of a Common Good
Either it does not exist, or it is too abstract

No necessary link between democratic process and expression of the will of the people
Historically, non-democratic procedures have often expressed will of the people much better (see Napoleon example, pp.254-255)

Humans do not have ‘definiteness of volition or rationality of behavior’ to decide many issues in a political system
Typical person ‘expends less disciplined effort on mastering a political problem than he expends on a game of bridge.’ (p.261).

Question 21

What is Schumpeters 1978 alternative to the Classical doctirin of democracy?

Answer 21

The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.’ (p.269)

In Schumpeter’s account, democracy is not tied to Common Good and Common Will of people
Democracy is not about achieving ideal outcome, but providing the channels for political party competition

Question 21

What are some criticisms to Schumpeters 1978alternative to the classical doctrin of democracy?

Answer 21

For Schumpeter, democracy is just a method for elite competition
Runciman (podcast) claims that this is a ‘minimal account of democracy’ –competitive elections AND peaceful transfer of power
But peaceful transfer does not appear in text
Nonetheless, if we include peaceful transfer, January 6 has shown that it is by no means low threshold
BUT: Portrays democracy as one moment every 4 (or so) years. What about the time in between? (Christof’s criticism)
BUT: Vision of democracy so normatively empty that it becomes difficult to distinguish from other forms (Dahl’s criticism)
See also: Levitsky/Ziblatt: Competitive Authoritarianism (sem 4)
See also: 3 Criticisms in subject guide

Question 21

What are the 3 key concepts if one thinks about democracy as balance?

Answer 21

Democracy as Equilibrium

Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances

Representative Democracy

Question 22

How does Przeworski 2003 describes democracy?

Answer 22

Democracy is institutionalised uncertainty

‘Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections. There are parties: divisions of interests, values, and opinions. There is competition, organized by rules. And there are periodic winners and losers. Obviously not all democracies are the same; one can list innumerable variations and distinguish several types of democratic institutions. Yet beneath all the institutional diversity, one elementary feature - contestation open to participation (Dahl 1971) - is sufficient to identify a political system as democratic.’ (p.10)

‘Democracy is a system of ruled open-endedness, or organized uncertainty.’ (p.13)

Question 22

Why does Przeworski 2003 think that losers in a democratic election should accept and comply with democratic outcomes?

Answer 22

‘Democratic institutions render an intertemporal character to political conflicts. They offer a long time horizon to political actors; they allow them to think about the future rather than being concerned exclusively with present outcomes… Some institutions under certain conditions offer to the relevant political forces a prospect of eventually advancing their interests that is sufficient to incite them to comply with immediately unfavorable outcomes. Political forces comply with present defeats because they believe that the institutional framework that organizes the democratic competition will permit them to advance their interests in the future.’ (p.19)

Institutional framework allows us to answer the ‘compliance question’

Question 23

How does Przeworski 2003 thinks Democracy can be seen as Equilibrium?

Answer 23

‘Compliance can be self-enforcing if the institutional framework is designed in such a way that the state is not a third party but an agent of coalitions of political forces. The answer to the question “Who guards the guardian?” is: those forces in the civil society that find it in their self-interest. Democracy can be an equilibrium: a system of “self-government” in which the distinction between the rulers and the ruled disappears’ (p.25)

Institutional framework establishes an ‘equilibrium’ that produces equal uncertainty for all political forces

Question 24

When is a democracy according to Przeworski 2003 consolidated?

Answer 24

Democracy is ‘consolidated’ (‘the only game in town’) when all parties accept the institutional framework

Question 25

Why do we need checks and balances in a goverment?

Answer 25

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.’

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

James Madison, Federalist Paper No 51

Question 26

What are the 4 features of representative democracy?

Answer 26

1. the sovereignty of the people expressed in the electoral appointment of the representatives
2. representation as a free mandate relation
3. electoral mechanisms to ensure some measure of responsiveness to the people by representatives who speak and act in their name
4. universal franchise, which grounds representation on an important element of political equality

Question 27

What is representative democracy according to Urbinati 2012?

Answer 27

Rep democracy is not an oxymoron – there can be a ‘democratic theory of representation’

Rep democracy is neither a form of contract (private law) nor is it restricted to elections

Rep democracy is a distinctively ‘political process’, creating special political relationships

Rep democracy is middle ground between realists (like Schumpeter) who say there is no relationship beyond elections and legalists who claim there is a legal relationship between people and representative

Question 27

What is the relationship between the representative and the electorat according to Urbinati 2012?

Answer 27

‘The currency of political representation is promises (with a moral commitment on the part of the elected and, at most, their prudential calculus in seeking re-election or simply the desire to be popular). In a word, the currency of representation is ideological in that it is an interpretative or artificially created similarity between the representative and her electors (not pictorial or mirror-like similarity)… A relation of ideological sympathy and communication between the representative and her electors is necessary and can occur only because political representation excludes legal mandate and is not a contract. The sympathetic relation of the representative to the part that voted for her is, and must only be, a matter of opinions or ideas, an informal and thus not authoritative kind of relation. This means, however, that the representative is not politically autonomous from her electors although she must be legally autonomous.’

Question 27

Whats Urbinatis 2012 conclusion about representative democracy?

Answer 27

‘Elections ‘make’ representatives but they do not ‘make’ representation; at a minimum, they make responsible and limited government, but not representative democracy. Representation activates a kind of political unity that can be defined neither in terms of a contractual agreement between electors and elected nor resolved into a system of competition to appoint those who are to pronounce the general interest of all. It designates a comprehensive form of political process that is structured in terms of circularity of judgement and influence between institutions and society and has political parties or movements as its indispensable pivoting forces. Representation makes contemporary democracy an uninterrupted dynamic of the reactions of civil political society to the actions by institutional political society.’

Question 28

What is Saward’s (1994) notion of self limiting democracy based on the responsive rule (May, 1978) ?

Answer 28

Responsive rule (May, 1978):
‘Necessary correspondence between acts of governance and the wishes with respect to these acts of the people who are affected’
- So the government acts should be representative of the needs of the citizens
- May makes it clear that it should operate as far as feasible

Self-limiting democracy (Saward, 1994):
‘There is no justification within the theory for the majority viewpoint not being decisive in terms of substantive policy in cases other than those which threaten the persistence of responsive rule itself’
–> Anything can pass as long as it doesn’t violate the responsive rule
–> Majority rule is not inherently ‘tyranny of the majority’
–> ‘Factors logically necessary to responsive rule’s persistence should be taken out of the reach of majority decision procedures’

Question 29

What is Saward’s idea on non-contingent superior knowledge?

Answer 29

Non-contingent superior knowledge (Saward, 1994):
Contingent knowledge is a certain set of skills/knowledges that is appliable ‘only’ in a certain sphere of interest.
E.g. What is the fastest way to repair a car.
In contingent knowledge, there can be superiorit; if somebody is the fastest at reparóiring a car, they have superior knowledge in how to repair a car.
Non-contingent knowledge/skill is transferable between different spheres of interest, E.g. politics.
However, they can be essentially contested. Saward argues in terms of ‘fallibilism’, that is, ‘’ [fallibilism] does not say that we can never know the truth, but rather that we are never justified in behaving as if we know it … we are never justified in refusing to consider the possibility that we might be wrong’’
Thus, non-contingent knowledge cannot be superior.

He connects his notion of non-contingent superior knowledge to his idea of intrinsic equality. That is where he thinks he differs from Dahl.
It is not the fact that we are certain that people are equal, bur rather the fact that we can never be certain of being superior.
(‘Principle of abscence’ as I call it)

‘Individuals and sub-groups must be taken to be the best judges of their own interests, not because of some inherent quality which they possess equally, but because of the absence of such a quality, or of our capacities to know such a quality.’

Question 30

What does Schumpeter (1978) think of the general will?

Answer 30

According to Schumpeter, 1978:
The general will should be recognised as the ‘manufactured will’

‘[In the classical doctrine of democracy], evidently the will of the majority is the will of the majority and not the will of “the people”’

‘So far as this is so, the will of the people is the product and not the motive power of the political process.’
‘The ways in which issues and the popular will on any issue are being manufactured is exactly analogous to the ways of commercial advertising’

‘What we have termed Manufactured Will is no longer outside the theory, an aberration for the absence of which we piously pray; it enters on the ground floor as it should’

Question 31

Why are people stupid according to Schumpeter?

Answer 31

On rationality:

‘It is with most of the decisions of daily life that lie within the little field which the individual citizen’s mind encompasses with a full sense of its reality.’
‘Voters thereby prove themselves bad and indeed corrupt judges of such issues [national issues concerning the individual], and often they even prove themselves bad judges of their own long-run interests for it is only the short-run promise that tells politically and only short-run rationality that asserts itself effectively’
‘What strikes me most of all and seems to me to be the core of the trouble is the fact that the sense of reality is so completely lost’
‘The reduced sense of responsibility and the absence of effective volition in turn explain the ordinary citizen’s ignorance and lack of judgment in matters of domestic and foreign policy’

On ignorance:

‘Information is plentiful and readily available’
‘All of this goes to show that without the initiative that comes from immediate responsibility, ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct’
!!–> People cannot be carried up the ladder
‘Since the first thing man will do for his ideal or interest is to lie, we shall expect, and as a matter of fact we find, that effective information is almost always adulterated or selective and that effective reasoning in politics consists mainly in trying to exalt certain propositions into axioms and to put others out of cour’
‘If all the people can in the short run be “fooled” step by step into something they do not really want, and if this is not an exceptional case which we could afford to neglect, then no amount of retrospective common sense will alter the fact that in reality they neither raise nor decide issues but that the issues that shape their fate are normally raised and decided for them.’
—————————————————-
‘Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field’
‘He becomes a primitive again’

Question 32

Are competitions fair for Schumpeter (1978)?

Answer 32

‘To simplify matters we have restricted the kind of competition for leadership which is to define democracy, to free competition for a free vote.’
‘But though this excludes many ways of securing leadership which should be excluded, such as competition by military insurrection, it does not exclude the cases that are strikingly analogous to the economic phenomena we label “unfair” or “fraudulent” competition or restraint of competition. And we cannot exclude them because if we did we should be left with a completely unrealistic ideal.’

Question 33

What does Przeworski (1991) think about Democracy?

Answer 33

‘Democracy is a system in which parties loose elections’
- There are parties: divisions of interests, values and opinions’
-‘There is competition organized by rules’
- ‘There are periodic winners and losers’

‘Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend
on what participants do but no single force controls what occurs’
- ‘Democracy generates the appearance of uncertainty because it is a system of decentralized strategic action in which knowledge is inescapably local.’
- ‘Democracy is a system of ruled open-endedness, or organized uncertainty.’

Question 34

When is a democracy consolidated according to Przeworski (1991)

Answer 34

‘Democracy is consolidated when under given political and economic conditions a particular system of institutions becomes the only game in town, when no one can imagine acting outside the democratic institutions, when all the losers want to do is to try again within the same institutions under which they have just lost’
‘A stable democracy requires that governments be strong enough to govern effectively but weak enough not to be able to govern against important interests.’

Question 35

How does uncertainty present in a democracy according to Przeworski (1991)?

Answer 35

• ‘Contrary to the favorite words of conservatives of all kinds, democracy is neither chaos nor anarchy.’
• ‘From the point of view of each participant, outcomes are uncertain: Democracy appears to be a system in which everyone does what he or she expects is for the best and then dice are thrown to see what the outcomes are’
• ‘Actors know what is possible, since the possible out comes are entailed by the institutional framework (..) What they do not know is which particular outcome will occur.’
• ‘If outcomes were either predetermined or completely indeterminate, there would be no reason for groups to organize as participants. It is the uncertainty that draws them into the democratic interplay.’

Question 35

How does commitment to rules relate to democratization according to Przeworski (1991)?

Answer 35

• ‘Under democracy commitment to rules constitutes at most a “willingness to accept outcomes of an as yet undetermined content”(Lamounier 1979)’
• ‘The crucial moment in any passage from authoritarian to democratic rule is the crossing of the thresh old beyond which no one can intervene to reverse the outcomes of the formal political process. Democratization is an act of subjecting all interests to competition, of institutionalizing uncertainty.’
• ‘The decisive step toward democracy is the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.’

Question 36

Why would the opposition wait at “the traffic light” (Przeworski, 1991)?

Answer 36

1) Compliance is voluntary, spontaneous and decentralized

2) There are policeman at the intersection to enforce rules

3) Motivated by moral commitment to social order even when it’s not in their interest and there is no one to punish them

• ‘Complying with the current outcome, even if it is a defeat, and directing all actions within the institutional framework is better for the relevant political forces than trying to subvert democracy’
• ‘To put it some what more technically, democracy is consolidated when compliance -acting within the institutional framework - constitutes the equilibrium of the decentralized strategies of all the relevant political forces’
• ‘Compliance depends on the probability of winning within the democratic institutions’
• ‘To evoke compliance, to be consolidated, democratic institutions must to some extent be fair and to a complementary degree effective’

Question 37

What did Whitehead says on page 6. and 7. (2002)?

Answer 37

Essentially contested concept
Floating but anchored definition

Question 38

What is John D. May’s (1978) responsive rule? Why is it better than the alternatives?

Answer 38

‘Necessary correspondence between acts of governance and the wishes with respect to these acts of the people who are affected’

According to May it is the proper term because:
1) Clear terminology

2) Essentiality
- ‘Distinguishes the nature of democracy from the nature of democracy’s prerequisites, indicators, by-products and merits.’
- ‘many statements ascribing additional properties to democracy probably express beliefs about a phenomena which logically or empirically, causally or consequentially, invariably or occasionally, coincide with democracy’
—> Others definitions are not capturing the essence of democracy clearly

3) Generality
- ‘The Responsive Rule concept is congenial with the notion (..) that democracy is an arrangement which in principle can exist in all sorts and sizes of groups’
- ‘Does not tacitly assume the presence either of a large-scale association or of a face to face group’
- ‘Does not confine attention to civil associations at the expense of private associations’

4) Nominal quantifiability
- ‘Democracy is the name for both an ideal-type or model state a condition which exists in greater or lesser degree’
- Pure or perfect democracies (Ideal type)
—> ‘absolutely necessary and perfect correspondence exists between every act of governance and the wishes of every person who is affected’
- Relative democratic properties (Comparability)
—> A regime is democratic relative to another regime in so far as its arrangements yield closer correspondence between its governmental acts and the preferences of the persons who are affected by those acts
- Nominal classification (what is a democracy)
—> A regime is a democracy if its governmental acts comply persistently with the policy-preferences of at least a majority of the persons who are affected

Question 39

Who are the ‘demos’ according to May (1978)?

Answer 39

• Responsive rule enfranchises individual only if:

   1) Possesses preferences concerning the policy decisions which affect them or would acquire preferences if they were enfranchised
  
   2) Policy preferences differ systematically from those of the present electors and thus are not already being virtually represented
  
   3) Lack non-electoral channels through which they can make their preferences counted along with those    of other affected people
  
   4) Would use their electoral powers rationally, i.e. to support the policies they prefer

Question 40

What is Lipset’s (1959)notion of necessary rules for democratic politics?

Answer 40

1) Conversion both ways, in and out of government is possible p(75)

2) Parties should give up integrational emphasis (p75)
- (Neumann, 1932)
–>Parties of integration:
concerned with making the world conform to their basic philosophy (policy seeking?)
–> Parties of represenation —> securing votes around election time (office seeking?)

3) Conditions which serve to moderate the intensity of partisan battle are among key requisites of democratic government (p.71)