Gulay Icoz explores how the rejuvenated Science of Democracy series – Science of Democracy 2.0 – challenges conventional democratic theory. Here, she explains how it opens new pathways for citizen-led innovation while raising critical questions about institutional grounding and feasibility
This new phase in Jean-Paul Gagnon's 🦋 Science of Democracy series is a bold and imaginative contribution to contemporary democratic theory. It invites readers to rethink how we understand, study and practice democracy – moving beyond conventional frameworks toward a more pluralistic, participatory vision.
My own research explores democratic backsliding and the role of political parties; I'm also a country expert for V-Dem. I therefore approach this blog piece with deep appreciation for the series' ambition, creativity, and the years of intellectual labour behind its development.
This series of essays, almost 130 at the time of writing, recently spawned a book whose departure from traditional models and logics of democracy is refreshing and thought-provoking. It also raises important questions about feasibility, conceptual clarity, and the institutional foundations needed to sustain democratic innovation.
One of this series' central arguments – that democracy is not a singular, universal model but a plural and evolving set of practices – is timely and necessary. It challenges the dominance of liberal representative democracy and calls for a more inclusive, descriptive, and culturally grounded approach. This is especially relevant in autocratic contexts, where democratic erosion often occurs through the gradual hollowing out of democratic norms.
Rather than merely cataloguing institutional features, I aim to develop universal indicators rooted in the core principles of democracy.
Institutions are not just containers of democratic practice; they are expressions of it, shaped by historical trajectories and social contracts
In contrast, as a historical institutionalist, I remain convinced of the enduring importance of institutions – especially those founded on widely accepted democratic principles. Institutions are not just containers of democratic practice; they are expressions of it, shaped by historical trajectories and social contracts. The Science of Democracy 2.0 calls for abductive reasoning, moving between inductive and deductive approaches. It offers a promising way to reconcile philosophical depth with empirical rigour, and to ensure that democracy measurement evolves in step with democratic realities.
The series' commitment to decolonising democratic theory and critiquing Western parochialism is particularly commendable. It reminds us that democracy is not the exclusive domain of Western institutions and traditions. Democratic practices and discourses emerging from the Global South remain underexplored and undervalued.
This broader lens encourages us to engage with diverse sources of democratic expression across cultures, languages, and even species. For instance, I was surprised to learn that bubble tea shops – ubiquitous across London – are meeting points for East Asian pro-democracy youth alliances. It’s unlikely that many Londoners are aware of this, despite the fact that such knowledge could foster greater solidarity and understanding.
Yet, the emphasis on epistemic and cultural pluralism sometimes comes at the expense of institutional analysis. Notably, the role of political parties – central to democratic accountability and renewal – has been largely absent from discussion in this series. This omission is significant, because parties shape democratic trajectories and mediate citizen engagement.
I think this leaves a gap in understanding how we might ground and sustain democratic innovations in existing political systems.
The Science of Democracy 2.0’s methodological innovation lies in its call for a 'sciences of the democracies' approach. It draws on individuals, groups, texts, non-textual media, and non-humans within an 'ethno-quantic domain'. This framework expands the research imagination, encouraging scholars to explore unconventional sources. The concept of the 'Fourth Theorist' – a future scholar or AI capable of synthesising vast democratic data – is compelling, promoting dynamic, data-informed theorising. But we must take care to develop any such tools with the ethical oversight to avoid reinforcing biases or undermining democratic values.
Democracy means different things to different people. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, 'democracy is everywhere and nowhere'
On the other hand, the focus on the semantic complexity of democracy resonates with my teaching experience. Students often struggle to define democracy, and many conclude that it means different things to different people. This aligns in particular with the assertion that 'democracy is everywhere and nowhere'.
This Wittgensteinian insight – that language shapes political reality – is powerful, and the call to expand the democratic lexicon is well taken. Educational proposals like QR-coded statues and citizen-led theorising offer imaginative ways to democratise political knowledge.
One of this series' most compelling contributions is its insistence that democracy – or its absence – exists not only in formal institutions but also in families, schools, workplaces, and even within the self. This perspective expands democracy’s adversaries beyond authoritarianism to include oligarchy, technocracy, patriarchy, and illiberal democratic forms.
I am a former councillor and active local party member, and I aspire to return to local politics. I therefore find this work compelling in its insistence that democratisation must occur at all levels – including in local institutions like city councils. On a daily basis, ordinary citizens experience democracy at the local level in its most tangible form.
One of this series' most compelling contributions is its insistence that democracy exists in families, schools, workplaces, and even within the self
The emphasis on local experimentation, such as sortition-based deliberative forums, resonates deeply with my own efforts. Following the July 2024 UK general election, I proposed to my local Labour Party the organisation of deliberative forums to engage residents on issues shaping voting preferences. I also aimed to explore how our relationship with constituents could be strengthened in substance and in method.
This bottom-up approach to democratisation, where communities and local governments are empowered to define and enact democratic practices, affirms my belief in participatory politics. It reinforces a sense of belonging to a broader movement committed to revitalising democracy from the ground up – motivating continued engagement and innovation in democratic practice.
Ultimately, the Science of Democracy 2.0 speaks to a wide audience: citizens, researchers, practitioners. It invites all to shape democratic futures. It expands the democratic imagination; while reminding us that theory must remain grounded in the realities of power, institutions, and contestation.
And it is a work of genuine ambition and moral urgency – one that deserves to be read, debated, and built upon.
