Who says what and where democracy is? 

A new book by Jean-Paul Gagnon and colleagues, The Sciences of the Democracies, bundles together the most recent and highly relevant debate on a paradigm shift in democracy research. Its argument is: let us move away from the Western-influenced notion of liberal democracy as an ideal type towards all other forms of popular rule. Scholars have often seen this previous understanding of democracy as restrictive. 

Democracy has a rich arsenal of meanings and practices that shape human coexistence in time, space and words. We should strive to include all of them in how we conceive of and practice it. Historically, theorists have neglected non-textual forms of democratic expression, such as architecture, the arts, film and television or the animal world (for example, the democratic methods of honeybees). But these forms are important. The expansion of sources in the search for democracies worldwide must take place philosophically, institutionally, educationally and methodologically. 

Democracy beyond the word democracy 

Beyond merely the word democracy, the philosophical dimension requires scholars to determine which concepts and ideas of democracy to include. It also requires us to decide where the boundaries between democracy and non-democracy lie. Five sources – individuals, groups, non-textual media, texts and non-human beings – form the basis of the data extraction. 

It is already clear that the breadth of participating researchers must also be enormous if we are to examine (for example) the democratic behaviour of Western honeybees and democratic expressions of Stone Age architecture, and transfer them into common categories. 

This is an ambitious undertaking on which other democracy researchers have not yet reached agreement. Even simple demarcations cause disagreement, and will probably not find a solution in this project. For example: is rule of law an essential part of democracy? If so, we must also consider linguistic and cultural concepts from all over the world that express different forms of legal binding within a social or political community.

What do people actually understand by democracy? And how do specific local, regional and national contexts shape that understanding?

It is still not entirely clear how we draw the philosophical boundaries, because our aim is to avoid defining a normative core of democracy a priori. This symbolises a fundamental shift of perspective in democracy research. 

In American-style political culture research of the 1950s and 1960s, researchers' focus was on support for democracy. But nowadays, we should ask: what do people actually understand by democracy? And how do specific local, regional and national contexts shape that understanding? 

The ambition of that research project is high. Gagnon et al want to make the world more democratic, because they 'are hoping to offer a better description of the reality of democracy, which we, for the moment, believe will lead to more democracy in social, political, economic, and legal spheres and, therefore, less non-democracy wherever one may look or be'.  

We must compare even subjective meanings objectively 

I would like to point out a few problems that comparative democracy research should consider more deeply. Firstly, the problem remains that the position of the scientist is always subjective, and shaped by their own cultural and social background. The availability of new sources of knowledge about democracy will not necessarily change the individual’s research process. 

Secondly, does more knowledge about democracy really make the world more democratic? What does 'more democratic' mean if we cannot trace 'the democracies' (plural) back to a common denominator or core? There is a certain meaninglessness to this question if it remains unclear what connects democracies, and what qualities they possess.

Not all concepts of democracy are equally democratic. They do not all fulfil equally the greatest possible freedom, equality and control

Thirdly, today's increasingly polarised conflicts pit different models of democracy against each other. It is unlikely that a political entity remains democratic at the same 'quality' regardless of which conception of democracy prevails within it. 

To see examples of this in practice, we can look at the cleavage between defenders of liberal democracy and advocates of 'populist' or undemocratic understandings of democracy. Not all concepts of democracy are equally democratic. They do not all fulfil equally the greatest possible freedom, equality and control. States ruled by authoritarian populists are demonstrably becoming more undemocratic, even though their leaders claim to be strengthening 'true' democracy in the name of the people. 

Dangerous polarisation in the name of 'democracy' 

So, it remains the aim of comparative democracy research to normatively compare the democratic content of different systems and models. In this respect, I want to strengthen Matthew Flinders’ warning that the prophecies about fragmentation of the concept of democracy might become self-fulfilling.

It remains the aim of comparative democracy research to normatively compare the democratic content of different systems and models

Won’t the increasing references to a variety of understandings of democracy make it possible for non-democratic actors to pursue authoritarian measures under the banner of their very own concept of democracy? I am not sure how theorists should deal with references to culturally and regionally limited understandings of democracy when these are essentialised as part of our own identities. This limits the possibilities for democratic compromise from the outset. And this weakness is precisely the lesson we should learn from the large body of literature on the dominance of the liberal model of democracy. 

As an essentially contested concept, democracy is characterised by tension. In its specific nation-state form, it should not permanently favour one particular model of democracy to the exclusion of others. Nevertheless, a certain arbitrariness in the concept of democracy is also a gateway for weak ties of a political community that disintegrates into identity politics and its pernicious polarisation.

No.121 in a Loop thread on the Science of Democracy. Look out for the 🦋 to read more

The post 🦋 Democracy between anywhere and nowhere  appeared first on The Loop.