The Science of Democracy 2.0 challenges current uses of the term 'democracy'. Yida Zhai argues that these uses are not universal but culturally specific. This, he says, makes them inadequate for describing the political realities of the human species as a whole
Philosophy and science are grounded in distinct methodological foundations. While science relies on systematic empirical observation and data collection, philosophy primarily employs abstract reasoning and conceptual analysis to investigate fundamental questions.
In light of this, what does this second stage in the Science of Democracy discussion entail? How might this emerging aspect of the field challenge the traditional boundaries of philosophy? What innovations does it offer to the study of democratic theory?
Over 120 essays in this Loop series address these questions. They are also tackled in a book, The Sciences of the Democracies, in which Jean-Paul Gagnon and his co-authors offer a novel framework for studying democracy as a scientific subject. The total proposal here is for a reconsideration of the conceptual foundations of democracy and the methodological approaches used to study it.
This discussion reintegrates philosophical inquiry into the heart of democracy studies, while also embracing empirical approaches. Advocacy centres on a research strategy grounded in evidence, which involves constructing a comprehensive repository of democratic concepts across time, space, language, culture, and species. This framework, known as the ethno-quantic domain, consists of four core dimensions: philosophical, institutional, educational, and methodological.
It draws from five major sources of democratic knowledge, including individuals, groups, non-textual media, texts, and non-humans.
Unsurprisingly, this ambitious project has met with scepticism, particularly from conventional philosophers and democratic theorists. Critics argue that the effort to collect democracy’s endless meanings is overly ambitious, futile, or even naïve. However, from a scientific perspective, these perceived obstacles are integral to the intellectual value of the project.
Critics argue that the effort to collect democracy’s endless meanings is overly ambitious, but the perceived obstacles are integral to the intellectual value of the project
Scientific research is by nature an exploration of the unknown. It involves collecting evidence, testing hypotheses, and gradually refining theories in an unending process of discovery.
By focusing on diverse concepts of democracy, the aim is to provide an alternative way to deepen understandings of democratic theories and their practices. This project encourages global citizens and scholars to critically engage with the problems they face in their own contexts. The point is to challenge the reduction of democracy to a single definition and to argue for a more inclusive exploration that resists both political ideology and academic orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, the empirical study of democracy across cultures and historical periods does not imply erasure of the essential distinction between democracy and autocracy. Despite its variations, democracy's core principle remains rule by the people. When autocrats oppress, persecute, or kill citizens, referring to such a regime as democratic contradicts the very idea of popular rule, no matter what the modifying adjective.
This series does not obscure this distinction. Rather, it seeks to clarify it through rigorous and inclusive investigation.
In studying democracy scientifically, we must also consider how political power shapes language. Although the concept of democracy is pluralistic, the term confers political legitimacy. This makes it susceptible to manipulation. Authoritarian regimes often label themselves democratic, inventing terms such as 'People's Democratic Dictatorship' and 'guided democracy' to legitimise their rule.
When analysing diverse concepts of democracy under authoritarian regimes, it is important to recognise that they reflect official rhetoric, not genuine democratic practice
These variants are not naturally occurring but constructed through political agendas. When analysing diverse concepts of democracy under authoritarian regimes, it is thus important to recognise that political power shapes some of these concepts. They reflect official rhetoric, not genuine democratic practice.
In an era marked by democratic backsliding and the resurgence of authoritarianism, the call to defend democracy and its core values is more urgent than ever. However, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent complexity of the concept of democracy. Authoritarian leaders, after all, manipulate democratic rhetoric to legitimise their rule.
Yet this complexity is not confined to authoritarian contexts. Even in established democracies, political practices are increasingly revealing internal contradictions and tensions within the democratic framework. For example, we often equate democracy with elections, civil liberties, and political rights. Yet some elected leaders now systematically undermine human rights, the rule of law, and academic freedom.
These developments expose internal tensions within the democratic model and further complicate our understanding of what democracy entails.
Global initiatives such as the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project and International IDEA have avoided offering a single definition of democracy. Instead, they identify key attributes such as electoral integrity, civil liberties, and the rule of law as necessary components. This approach provides a more meaningful framework for empirical analysis than engaging in abstract definitional debates.
By offering key attributes of democracy rather than a single definition, global initiatives such as V-Dem and International IDEA provide a more meaningful framework for empirical analysis
The Science of Democracy 2.0 establishes a new research agenda and marks the beginning of a large-scale intellectual project. Building a comprehensive science of democracies will require a global coalition of scholars. The scope of this endeavour is vast.
It cannot be completed by a handful of researchers – or even a single generation. Rather, it is a cumulative, long-term effort that unfolds across time and geography.
The cumulative materials, or 'mountains of data' gathered under the Science of Democracy banner will eventually provide the foundation upon which the so-called Fourth Theorist may develop new democratic theories from a big data perspective.
Contemporary researchers and practitioners around the world can contribute meaningfully by collecting and analysing the wide range of concepts associated with democracy. This collective effort contributes to building a comprehensive data infrastructure, which will help prepare the ground for theoretical breakthroughs and a deeper understanding of democracy.
