Theories of Democracy
Theories of Democracy
Theories of Democracy
Introduction
Competition
Inclusiveness
Nondemocratic regime - -
(closed hegemony)
Nondemocratic regime + -
(competitive oligarchy)
Nondemocratic regime - +
(inclusive hegemony)
Democracy + +
Meaning of Democracy
Democracy [demos = the people;
cracy >kratos =strength/rule,
so democracy = rule by the people]
Direct democracy
• Ancient Greek/ Rome and India Modern period-
Switzerland
Indirect democracy
• India, France, USA
Aristotle on Democracy
Aristotle: in Ancient
Greece
• Monarchy – ruled by
one
• Oligarchy, Aristocracy
– ruled by a few
• Democracy – ruled by
many
Rise of Democracy in Athens
Short wave began with Allied victory in World War II and continued
until approximately 1960.
West Germany, Japan, and Finland, Latin American states of Costa
Rica, Chile, and Uruguay, Austria, Italy became democratic.
The competitive system of Belgium and France allowed women to vote
after the war, resulting in democracies, and Italy also became a
democracy.
Czechoslovakia was a democracy before World War II, experienced
and interruption period during the war, and turned to nondemocracy
under Soviet pressure following it.
Waves………….
Democracy
Sovereignty with the people
Open competition for political parties
Respect for opposition
Freedom to form political parties
Periodic elections
Faith in constitutional means
Rule of majority
Independent and impartial
Judiciary
Rule of law
Provision of rights
Independent means of propaganda
Decentralization of powers
Secularism
Responsible government
Opposition of socialism and support of capitalism
Rejection of violence
Pluralistic nature of society
Criticism of the liberal theory of democracy
Capitalist democracy
Bourgeoisie democracy protects the interests of minority
capitalists
Capitalist exploit the proletariat
Workers fail to exercise their political rights
Press and mass media safeguard the interest of rich people
Use of education, religion and culture to promote the interest
of rich
Police military and courts protect the interests of the rich
people
Bourgeoisie democracy divide the society into
two classes
Marxist…
In sum, officials will be wary of oppressing any group for fear it will
be part of tomorrow's winning coalition and exact revenge.
Constitutional……
In other words, we find it hard to induce people to accept our doctrine, that the
rich should plunder the poor, a public relations problem that had not yet been
solved.
Noam….
"Radical democracy" means "the root of democracy." Laclau and Mouffe claim that
liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build
consensus, oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. In
the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of)
differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of
difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it. Laclau and Mouffe
argue based on the assumption that there are oppressive power relations that exist
in society and that those oppressive relations should be made visible, re-negotiated
and altered. By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive
relations of power that exist in society[clarification needed] are able to come to the
forefront so that they can be challenged.
Radical………
1. Elite Democracy theory fails to describe the conditions of modern society, i.e., it fails
as a descriptive model.
It assumes that the atomized mass is “natural” and inevitable rather than investigating
its sources.
It concludes that nothing can be done by the masses through protest or self-governance
because of the absence of community -- rather than imagining ways to build community
and make citizen action effective.
It inaccurately locates the source of anti-democratic backlashes.
It is mistaken about the motives of elites.
It assumes elites are elites because they are smart; i.e., it fails to identify the real source of
elite power, which, in capitalist society, is wealth.
It does not give ordinary people enough credit for their astounding accomplishment in
maintaining as much democracy as we have.
2. Elite Democracy theory fails as a normative model for effective “democratic” government.
We do not need elites to protect us from ourselves.
We do not face a world of scarcity unless we put our fate in the hands of the elites who
have done the most to deplete earth‟s reserves.
The theory does not have an adequate concept of freedom (it uses an outmoded 19th century
conception).
It misconstrues the purpose of democracy.
Criticism of elitist theory
PartIV. SeealsoBernard
Bereisonetal.,Voting(Chicago,1954),chapTER14;articlesby
LouisHartzandSamuelBeer inW.
N.ChambersandR.H.Salisbury(eds.),Democracy in theMid-
20TH
Alesina, A., Rosenthal, H., 1989. Partisan cycles in
congressional elections and the macroeconomy. American
Political Science Review 83, 373–398.
Austen-Smith, D., Banks, J., 1989. Electoral accountability
and incumbency. In: Ordeshook, P. (Ed.), Models of Strategic
Choice in Politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Banks, J., Sundaram, R.K., 1998. Optimal retention in agency
problems. Journal of Economic Theory 82, 293–323.