Definition of democracy and critcism | Summaries Theories of Democracy

Schedler, Andreas. “What is Democratic Consolidation?”

If it is true that "[n]o scientific field can advance far if the participants do not share a common

understanding of key terms in the field," then the study of democratic consolidation, at its

current state of conceptual confusion, is condemned to stagnation

Viewpoints and Horizons

The most widely accepted criteria for identifying a country as democratic have been put

forward by Robert Dahl--civil and political rights plus fair, competitive, and inclusive

elections. Dahl calls countries that meet these criteria "polyarchies," but they are more

commonly referred to as "liberal democracies."

Two other subtypes of democracy have gained wide recognition.

1) electoral democracy (semidemocracy): manages to hold (more or less) inclusive, clean, and

competitive elections but fails to uphold the political and civil freedoms essential for liberal

democracy.

2) advanced democracy: possess some positive traits over and above the minimal defining

criteria of liberal democracy, and therefore rank higher in terms of democratic quality

This four-fold classification--authoritarianism, electoral democracy, liberal democracy,

advanced democracy--basically corresponds to the way David Collier and Steven Levitsky

have ordered the semantic universe of democracy and its subtypes. I want to show that these

broad categories also provide a basis for reordering the conceptual map of consolidation

studies, and for comprehending the manifold ways students of democracy use the term

"democratic consolidation."

Figure 1 presents this classification of regime families graphically along a one-dimensional

continuum of "democraticness," with authoritarian regimes placed at one end and advanced

democracies at the other. The two middle categories, electoral and liberal democracy,

represent the empirical referents of all debate on democratic consolidation

from electoral or liberal democracy to authoritarianism equate democratic

consolidation with avoiding an authoritarian regression, a "quick death" of democracy

from electoral or liberal democracy to advanced democracy equate democratic

consolidation with democratic deepening

from liberal democracy to electoral democracy equate democratic consolidation with

avoiding a "slow death" of democracy, the erosion of certain fundamental democratic

features

from electoral democracy to liberal democracy equate democratic consolidation with

completing democracy, with supplying its missing features

negative notion of consolidation: those who are concerned with democratic stability and try to

avoid regressions to either nondemocratic or semidemocratic regimes

positive notion of consolidation: those who are concerned with democratic advances and try

to attain progress toward either liberal or high quality democracy

Democratic consolidation is indeed an intrinsically teleological concept. Yet I think there is

nothing inherently wrong with teleology, provided that three conditions are met: First, we

have to avoid veiling or obscuring it; hidden teleology is indeed bad teleology. Second, we

Partial preview of the text

Download Definition of democracy and critcism and more Summaries Theories of Democracy in PDF only on Docsity!

Schedler, Andreas. “What is Democratic Consolidation?” If it is true that "[n]o scientific field can advance far if the participants do not share a common understanding of key terms in the field," then the study of democratic consolidation, at its current state of conceptual confusion, is condemned to stagnation Viewpoints and Horizons The most widely accepted criteria for identifying a country as democratic have been put forward by Robert Dahl--civil and political rights plus fair, competitive, and inclusive elections. Dahl calls countries that meet these criteria "polyarchies," but they are more commonly referred to as "liberal democracies." Two other subtypes of democracy have gained wide recognition.

electoral democracy (semidemocracy): manages to hold (more or less) inclusive, clean, and competitive elections but fails to uphold the political and civil freedoms essential for liberal democracy.
advanced democracy: possess some positive traits over and above the minimal defining criteria of liberal democracy, and therefore rank higher in terms of democratic quality This four-fold classification--authoritarianism, electoral democracy, liberal democracy, advanced democracy--basically corresponds to the way David Collier and Steven Levitsky have ordered the semantic universe of democracy and its subtypes. I want to show that these broad categories also provide a basis for reordering the conceptual map of consolidation studies, and for comprehending the manifold ways students of democracy use the term "democratic consolidation." Figure 1 presents this classification of regime families graphically along a one-dimensional continuum of "democraticness," with authoritarian regimes placed at one end and advanced democracies at the other. The two middle categories, electoral and liberal democracy, represent the empirical referents of all debate on democratic consolidation  from electoral or liberal democracy to authoritarianism equate democratic consolidation with avoiding an authoritarian regression, a "quick death" of democracy  from electoral or liberal democracy to advanced democracy equate democratic consolidation with democratic deepening  from liberal democracy to electoral democracy equate democratic consolidation with avoiding a "slow death" of democracy, the erosion of certain fundamental democratic features  from electoral democracy to liberal democracy equate democratic consolidation with completing democracy, with supplying its missing features negative notion of consolidation: those who are concerned with democratic stability and try to avoid regressions to either nondemocratic or semidemocratic regimes positive notion of consolidation: those who are concerned with democratic advances and try to attain progress toward either liberal or high quality democracy Democratic consolidation is indeed an intrinsically teleological concept. Yet I think there is nothing inherently wrong with teleology, provided that three conditions are met: First, we have to avoid veiling or obscuring it; hidden teleology is indeed bad teleology. Second, we

have to dissociate teleology from any belief in inevitable progress: supporting some telos, some normative goal or practical task, is one matter; assuming "some kind of automatic or 'natural' progression" toward that goal is quite another. Third, we have to acknowledge that the notion of democratic consolidation knows not merely one characteristic telos but many, and that this plurality of teloi accordingly defines a plurality of concepts of democratic consolidation Avoiding Democratic Breakdown In accordance with its focus on the danger of coups, this first notion of democratic consolidation is concerned above all with deviant or antisystem actors who harbor antidemocratic motives. Eliminating, neutralizing, or converting disloyal players represents the primary task of democratic-breakdown prevention. Avoiding Democratic Erosion Military supremacy, state violence as well as state weakness may subvert the rule of law; the rise of hegemonic parties may suffocate electoral competition; the decay of electoral institutions may affect the honesty of vote counting; incumbents may use their privileged access to state resources and to the mass media in ways that violate minimum standards of electoral fairness and equal opportunity; or the introduction of exclusionary citizenship laws may violate democratic norms of inclusiveness Completing Democracy the transformation of "illiberal democracies," where the rule of law is biased and selective (or even aleatory), into liberal democracies that effectively guarantee basic political, civil, and human rights Deepening Democracy Most authors who write about democratic consolidation either think about our very first notion of democratic consolidation, the stabilization of democracy, or about this last notion of democratic consolidation, the deepening of democracy. Organizing Democracy consolidating democracy calls for more than institutionalizing democracy's basic ground rules. It demands establishing democracy's specific rules and organizations. In other words, this concept of consolidation turns its attention from the procedural minima that define democratic regimes to the concrete rules and organizations that define various forms of democracy. It implies constructing all those big organizations that make up the characteristic infrastructure of modern liberal democracies: parties and party systems, legislative bodies, state bureaucracies, judicial systems, and systems of interest intermediation. This fifth notion of democratic consolidation is "self-referential" insofar as liberal democracy serves as its point of both departure and arrival. Post Transitional Blues One basic finding is that the consolidation of democracy, as scholars use the term, represents a cluster concept with an intelligible structure but without a core, without a meaningful common denominator. "consolidology" is no more than a label for the study of new democracies. Scholars use the term in whatever way best fits their own research purposes, funding needs, and advertising strategies, while the usage of the same key term maintains the illusion of a

Definition of democracy and critcism, Summaries of Theories of Democracy

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Definition of democracy and critcism and more Summaries Theories of Democracy in PDF only on Docsity!