Democracy

Democracy refers to (a) a political system, (b) a political aspiration, and (c) a key term of political rhetoric. As a name for a political system, it refers to the fact that power to rule is invested in the people themselves in some tangible or formal sense (in the modern period, indirectly, through elected representatives). As an aspiration, democracy stands for the desire to deepen and extend the ideals of political equality and popular control, including in systems that are already regarded as democracies. These two approaches are often in tension. Contemporary representative democracy, for example, is sometimes criticized as remote and bureaucratic, granting power only minimally and episodically to ordinary citizens. This criticism has given rise to aspirations for forms of more direct citizen empowerment, or more participatory institutions.

Democracy is also a term of political rhetoric. It is a word that signifies, at the most general level, a good, if not the best and most desirable, constitution and allocation of political power. Leaders, writers, and people of varied political persuasions will want to be classed as “democrats” by their audiences.

The standard definition of democracy is “rule by the people,” from the ancient Greek (demos + kratia). Today, a people normally means citizens of a nation-state or country. But in an age of globalization and the revival of local and secessionist movements, it has become evident that there is no obvious democratic way to decide who constitutes “a people.” In what sense can the people rule? In an influential account, Jack Lively set out a sliding scale of possibilities. Rule by the people could mean that all should be involved in deciding and administering policy, or that all should be involved in crucial decisions. Perhaps democratic rule can involve only a select minority, normally elected representatives, in ruling? Is it enough if these representatives are chosen by, or accountable to, the people as a whole? If rulers are chosen by the representatives of the ruled, is that too distant from any substantial sense of the people ruling to be classed properly as democratic? There is wide scope for specifying democracy's meaning and requirements, and therefore too wide a scope for scholarly and political debate about the proper character and demands of democracy.

Some observers regard democracy as having universal value, but just why it has value is a matter of some contestation. Is it because democracy produces beneficial outcomes in stability and relative social peace? Is it because democracy embodies intrinsic values, such as equality? Or is it because democratic participation produces more educated and confident citizens? It seems reasonably clear that adequate answers will involve a range of these and other concerns, and further, that the ways in which democracy is defined and justified bear a close link to each other. [Page 172]Debates about democracy's meaning and value are often conducted as timeless philosophical debates, but such debates draw on a long history of institutional and theoretical innovation. Ancient Greek democracy, most notably in Athens from around 500 BCE, was practiced in city-states rather than in nations or empires. This democracy featured direct citizen participation in a face-to-face assembly making decisions for the community, rather than representation (though there were representative elements). However, women, slaves, and resident foreigners were not “citizens” and so were excluded from the public political life of the city. Only a minority of male citizens actually took part in the direct democratic assemblies and were eligible to be chosen (by lot, or random selection) for public offices.

...