Defining and Conceptualising Democracy Flashcards
What is the basic meaning of democracy?
Demos – people; kratos – Power
Democratic system one in which ‘people‘ have ‘power‘
Democracy – rule of the people
Democracy – self-rule
Gagnon 2021, in rescuing an abandond science says….
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.’
Saward 1994 said on democracy thah
“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)
Saward 1994 defind democracy as
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)
Saward‘s 1994 Negative Argument for Equality
‘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.
Competing Values/Trade Off Principle of Saward 1994
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.’
Saward 1994 concludes that more democracy is not always a good thing…
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?’
Whitehead 2002 on Democracy/Democratisation
Hesitant to present definition of democracy & democratisation
Emphasises contested nature of democracy + importance of context
Distances himself from positivist, quantitative conceptions of d&d
Whitehead 2002 describes Democracy as an anchored but floating concept, what does that mean?
´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)
Why does Whitehead 2002 describe Democray as Essentially Contested?
‘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)
what does Whitehead 2002 mean with the ‘Spirit of Democracy‘?
‘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)
How does Dahl 1989 think a more sophisticated theory of democracy can be developed?
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).
What 5 different things can democracy mean according to Dahl 1989?
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.
Dahl 1989 understands democracy primarily…..
…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).
What does Dahl 1989 think is fundamental about democracy and why does it help to satisfy the basic human need for self-determination?
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
How is Dahls´s 1989 Justification for Democracy as the best system based on its idea of equqlity and intrinsic worth?
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)
What are the four essential components that Dahl 1989 placed his theory of democracy on?
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)
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?
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)
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?
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.
What is the difference between democracy and polyarchy? According to Dahl 1989
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’.