This new phase in the Science of Democracy series posits the idea of a 'Fourth Theorist' – a still-to-exist thinker who may in future come to life. But, asks Dimitra Mareta, will that person, or thing, deliver on their promises? Or will the Fourth Theorist prove a false idol?
This second chapter in Jean-Paul Gagnon's Science of Democracy Series moves through many millennia and schools of thought. But its main contribution is its innovations. The Science of Democracy 2.0 approaches democracy in plural rather than as a one-sided Western concept. This is especially interesting, since most contributions to the wider series – including those from Simone Chambers, Markus Pausch, and Benjamin Abrams – engaged mainly with Western concepts and themes. (There have, however, been notable exceptions, such as those by Nojang Khatami and Ryusaku Yamada). But this new crop of essays also introduces us to the idea of a Fourth Theorist: the entity who will try to theorise from all known conceptions of democracy.
The series motivates us to return to the study of democracy in theory, and away from behaviourist approaches. It invites us to drop the western-centric approach which seeks to define democracy in one immutable way that allows us to export democracy to less democratic societies.
This series invites us to drop the western-centric approach which seeks to define democracy in one immutable way
Contributions urge us to accept democracy's plural nature. This also means thinking of democracy as being in constant flux; changing and progressing. This is not necessarily a linear process. The assumption that democracy is in crisis is fuelling anti-democratic tendencies and movements around the world. We must stop thinking about democracy in this way.
Contributors to Jean-Paul's Sciences of the Democracies book have not clarified whether the Fourth Theorist is a person, a team of people, or a form of AI. Researchers across the globe have welcomed AI with enthusiasm, but the technology is already showing its limits.
Can we trust in democracy's future? The Fourth Theorist should be able to tell us. And I feel strongly that this future theorist should be a human, not a form of AI.
Theorists of democracy may have to become masters of AI, but they must reserve for themselves the work of interpreting data
We must struggle intellectually, and do so together, to understand democracy. And this isn’t solely about climbing data mountains. If we want to prepare a Fourth Theorist, we need to understand that they too, may have to become a master of AI, while reserving for themselves the work of interpreting (not just describing) data.
For a Fourth Theorist to come to life, we need a democratic definition of democracy (yes, that’s a thing). This definition must be distinct from the oversimplified and dangerous uses of the term in politics and the media. To do this, we need to find, organise and analyse as much information, and as many definitions of democracy, as can be useful for citizens, governments, researchers, and philanthropists.
For a Fourth Theorist to come to life, we need a democratic definition of democracy
That effort will lead to the construction of five data mountains from which the Fourth Theorist can work. This breadth and depth of data on democracy will give the Fourth Theorist the vantage point they need to look upon democracy differently.
The first data mountain comes from living human individuals and the way they think of democracy.
Then comes the collective mountain: logics and opinions human collectives form about democracy.
The non-textual mountain consists of 'architectural, artistic, semiotic, symbolic, sensory, and audible, visual, and engineered or design products'. These are artefacts largely ignored by conventional democratic theorists.
But we must not ignore the textual mountain. Texts are the native milieu for democracy’s theorists. This mountain poses the biggest challenge of all. We must study and consider theories of democracies in many languages, not just the hegemonic ones.
The final mountain is built from data on non-human expressions of democracy. We must construct it by observing and studying the behaviour of non-humans, and contrasting our findings with those gleaned from our knowledge of humans.
The Fourth Theorist must work with all the partial approaches and theories of democracy. They must analyse them and produce theory from them. This theory, descriptive, normative or prescriptive, must be useful to people who practice and engage with democracy. But it must also make it difficult for non-democrats to continue abusing it.
That’s a tall order, especially if the Fourth Theorist wants to avoid being undemocratic by espousing democratic theories which may now appear fantastical to us, or exporting democratic theories to people who never asked for them.
As The Sciences of the Democracies explains, the Fourth Theorist should work from, and maintain, a digital model of the world. In this model, they must posit democracy-related data, and describe that data painstakingly, in a multimedia reference work.
Contributions to this series haven’t yet drawn the link between a global advisory council to judge the democraticity of what is in the world model and reference work, and the sorts of theory the Fourth Theorist may produce from them. The council could keep Fourth Theorists honest. Indeed, they might be the only ones capable of doing that.
Are there enough democratic theorists to prepare the ground for a Fourth Theorist? Or have some of democracy’s most devoted students conceived a false god?
Will Fourth Theorists help popularise democracy knowledge? This series is clear about democracy studies’ public relations problem, and offers public outreach and public engagement suggestions for democracy theorists. Still, the Fourth Theorist doesn’t figure in this role.
We are left, in the end, with a final critical question: all this work can help democracy and benefit humans invoking democracy (or so this series' adherents dangerously wager), but can we do it? Are there enough democratic theorists to prepare the ground for a Fourth Theorist? Have some of democracy’s most devoted students conceived a false god? Or is it just that, like democracy, its study is more an ideal we pursue than one we will ever live?
No.118 in a Loop thread on the science of democracy. Look out for the 🦋 to read more in our series
Dimitra holds a PhD in political theory from Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences in Athens.
In the academic year 2024–2025, she was an adjunct lecturer in political theory at the University of Crete.
She was an adjunct lecturer in political science at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for the academic year 2020–2021, where she was also a postdoctoral researcher, and at the Hellenic Open University during academic years 2018–2019 and 2020–2021.
Her research and teaching interests include political philosophy, conservatism, the state, neo/liberalism, and women’s studies.
Dimitra has published academic articles and has participated in national and international conferences.
Her chapter on the theory of democracy appears in the Introduction to Political Science (Gutenberg, Athens, 2023) eds. Costas Eleftheriou, Yannis Tsirbas, Panos Koliostasis and Sophia Kanaouti, which presents theories of democracy from Ancient Athens to the present day.
