What is Democracy?
Although democracy as a political system has been conceptualized, described, and defined in many different ways, Schmitter and Karl and excerpts assembled from The Democracy Sourcebook provide valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of democracy while depicting the tension that characterizes the ideal (maximalist) and the real (minimalist) conceptions of democracy. According to Smitter and Karl, democracy is a form of a political governance system in which the rulers are answerable for their decision and actions to the citizenry and where such rulers act indirectly through the competition and collaboration of representatives elected by the public (4). Notably, this definition underscores the essence of accountability, representation, and citizen participation as integral components of a democratic system. However, Smitter and Karl further contend that democracy is not a singular concept but a continuum of distinct practices and institutions, including how the rulers assume power and the mechanism with which they are held accountable for their actions by the electorate (5). For instance, modern democracies generate rulers through diverse forms of authentically fair and regular competitive electoral processes under which the faction that wins the majority acquires the legitimacy to govern and where such elected officials do not experience overriding informal opposition from unelected individuals.
The tension between the ideal/maximalist and the real/minimalist conceptions of democracy is a critical feature of democratic theory and practice. The former establishes a high standard for democracy and emphasizes various values, including deliberation, equality, and participation, which, in reality, may be difficult to achieve. Such a democracy is anchored on robust institutions, inclusive decision-making processes, and strong civic engagement. Conversely, the real/minimalist perspective acknowledges the complexities and limitations that characterize politics in the real-world scenario. Consequently, the minimalist dimension recognizes that democracy may fail to achieve the espoused standards or ideals due to various factors that operate in the real-world setting, including elite capture, institutional constraints, and power imbalances.
Contemporary democratic theorists, including Robert Dahl, illustrate the essence of self-governing as a critical feature of a democracy. This implies that democratically elected leaders should have the liberty, autonomy, and independence to discharge their mandate to the people without any form of limitations imposed by other political systems (Dahl et al. 12). However, this conceptualization of democracy as the will of the people is distorted and inaccurate since in practice, democracy is never really the will of the people. To illustrate this view, in modern democracies, it is impossible for elected leaders to govern without the influence, constraints, or conditions of other overarching political systems, particularly as nation-states become more interdependent. For instance, as a matter of essence, democracies belong to blocs and alliances, which impose binding decisions on them, thereby diminishing the idea that democracies are purely the will of the people. Indeed, a democracy belonging to a league of nations, alliances, or a bloc is expected to implement jointly and mutually agreed decisions, underscoring the reality that democracy is not purely the will of the people.
If democracy were to be thought of as the will of the people in practice, governmental actions and policies would reflect the preferences and desires of the majority of the population. Additionally, it should be legally possible for all citizens to participate in the governance issues of a nation-state, rulers should be held accountable regularly for their actions by the electorate, parliamentary sovereignty ought to be unimpeded by judicial or executive authority, the generation of rulers through well organized political parties, and authentically pluralistic associations and representations. Further, democracy should have an elaborate system of checks and balances where the parliament, judiciary, and executive are ultimately answerable to the citizenry. For instance, a democracy should have institutional boundaries demarcating the powers, roles, and responsibilities of the judiciary, parliament, and executive. There should be elaborate procedures and rules preventing any institution from encroaching on the powers and duties of another. In this regard, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and executive are critical of an ideal democracy and enhance its reflection as the will of the people. Such other procedures, rules, and practices as regular and authentic elections, legal participation of the citizenry, checks and balances, and pluralism constitute critical components that undergird the ability of a democracy to be reflective of the will of the people.
Can the promise/ideal of democracy be realized?
Arguably, the promise/ideal of democracy can only be realized to some degree and in different situations and contexts. This implies that, to a great extent, the promises and ideals of democracy are unrealizable in practice since some of those aspirations are lofty and unattainable in real-world scenarios. Indeed, the maximalist conception of democracy sets unattainably high standards, including equality, participation, and deliberation, which are often difficult to achieve in practice. In this regard, the maximalist conception of democracy falls short of the promises and aspirations of the ideal democracy. As a result, people should accept the reality that only the minimalist conception of democracy is realizable in practice. The minimalist conception is worthwhile since, with the robust requisite procedures, rules, and practices, it would still deliver the promises of democracy to acceptable degrees and would impede autocracies or the supremacy of any governmental institution.
The Historical Phases of Democracy by John Keane
John Keane, a political theorist, contends that there have been three distinct historical phases of democracy over the last four millennia. In his book “The Life and Death of Democracy,” Keane identifies the assembly, representative, and monitory as the three phases of democracy. The assembly democracy can be traced back to between 1500-1200 BCE and emerged in the Middle East in the cities of Syria and Mesopotamia. This phase of democracy was characterized by the direct participation of citizens in public assemblies. In these assemblies, the citizens would debate and vote on such critical issues as legislation, wars, and the election of officials (Keane). The most distinctive feature of this phase of democracy was the emphasis on the direct participation of the people, where the citizens had equal voices and influence on decision-making, regardless of status in society.
Representative democracy emerged in Early Modern Europe and was pioneered in the formerly Spanish-dominated Netherlands. It was characterized by the election of representatives by the public, who would then make decisions on behalf of the citizenry. Notably, the most definitive feature of this phase of democracy was the development and entrenching of representative institutions, including parliaments, which were mandated to represent the citizens’ interests and hold governments accountable for their decisions and actions. To illustrate the undemocratic nature of representative democracy, Keane notes that the first parliament was Spanish in the Netherlands.
Monitory democracy is the current phase of democracy, which emerged in the 20th century. This phase of democracy was occasioned by the perceived ineffectiveness of representative institutions, including parliaments, and is depicted by the emergence of institutions that focus on monitoring and scrutinizing the activities and engagements of governments, corporations, and other influential institutions. For instance, current democracies have numerous power-monitoring establishments and institutions, including workplace tribunals, public integrity commissions, independent public entities, and judicial activism groupings. Notably, monitory democracy is characterized by its distinctive emphasis on institutional transparency, public participation, and accountability. For instance, in contemporary democracies, the general public is actively engaged in assessing, scrutinizing, and monitoring governments and other institutions as enabled by access to information and other tools at the disposal of the citizenry.
Overall, the assembly and monitory types of democracy are more democratic than the representative version. However, the assembly version emerges as the most distinctively democratic since it encompasses authentic participation of the public regardless of people’s social status, facilitates majoritarian rule, and nurtures genuine pluralism.
Works Cited
Keane, John. The Life and Death of Democracy. W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.
Schmitter, Philippe, and Terry Karl. “What Democracy is … and is Not”. Journal of Democracy, 2, pp. 3-16.
Dahl, Robert, A. The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press, 2003.
write