However, I am inclined to endorse Dahl's view that it is helpful to define democracy using certain key features. Undeniably, democracy is a multidimensional concept. Yet none of these features is necessarily shared by all political systems that can be labelled as democratic. Others still emphasise elections as a method of peaceful transition of power. For example, some notions of democracy emphasise popular self-government, others political equality. Rather, there are ‘family resemblances’ between democracies. Of course, one might argue that not all democracies share the same key features. And if we do that, we are back to the traditional approach of democratic theorists like Robert Dahl, which aims to define democracy by its key characteristics. The fact is that it is not possible to distinguish democracies from non-democracies without defining certain key features of democracy. From this perspective, the collection of different notions of democracy could become only a demonstration of what Sartori called ‘the age of confused democracy’. Similarly, including oppressive autocracies or oligarchies in the collection of democracies would just give rise to misunderstandings. Following the analogy of lepidopterology, one should not include artificial butterflies or moths in the collection of butterflies. It seems that there should be some rules and principles to help us differentiate between real democracies and fake ones. While Gagnon recognises this, it remains a major problem when the process of collecting democracies is so much based on terms and words. Consider, for example, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. Nowadays, it is therefore hard to find any political system or organisation that would openly admit to not being democratic.Įven the most oppressive authoritarian regimes often claim to be democratic. The notion of democracy has positive connotations. Distinguishing real from fake democraciesīut this approach does not come without problems. By being open to different understandings and forms of democracy, we can explore pathways for democratic renewal. Rather, the ideas of political equality and popular self-government have emerged in various places at various points in history. Moreover, it helps highlight the fact that democracy is not just a Western construct. Exploring different notions helps us understand how to interpret democracy differently in different geographical and historical contexts. There are many virtues in Gagnon’s approach. Jean-Paul Gagnon suggests that we should tackle this confusion inductively namely, by collecting and exploring different notions of democracy. Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited We characteristically live, then, in an age of confused democracy. Up until the 1940s people knew what democracy was and either liked or rejected it since then we all claim to like democracy but no longer know (understand, agree) what it is. Since the mid-20th century, scholars have increasingly understood democracy as a normative concept, as described by Sartori: Originally, the concept of democracy described a political system based on popular self-government. Maija Setälä argues that it also requires analytical clarity and normative commitment Exploring different notions of democracy Democratic renewal demands openness to different understandings of democracy, and reflection on our preconceptions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |