Discussions about democracy have never been more vibrant. Yet, debates often unfold in a highly simplistic or unreflective way. Dimitris Kastritis argues for the need to keep raising new questions in democratic theory
How should we define the concept of 'democracy'? And is such a thing even possible, in the first place? Statements about the crisis of democracy have almost become self-evident truths; take, for instance, the proliferation of notions such as 'democratic backsliding' and 'autocracy'.
Moreover, are we all on the same page regarding the understanding of the concepts we employ? What exactly do we mean by 'democracy'? Does the word refer to its liberal representative format – or to something else?
Let us also consider a more provocative question: is the divide between autocracies and democracies as clear as typically suggested? Would it not be better to adopt a framework that allows for a more dynamic understanding of the question?
What exactly is meant by democracy? And is the divide between autocracies and democracies as clear as we think it is?
This latest phase in the 🦋 series, Science of Democracy 2.0, attempts to address these queries and concerns. Its aims are bold and its scope is wide. It seeks nothing less than to collect all the various meanings of democracy in what series founder Jean-Paul Gagnon calls the 'ethno-quantic' domain.
That term means the sum of the 'temporal, spatial, cultural, linguistic and speciated originations' of democracy. However, entries in this series enter into a discussion that is also imbued by an ethos of intellectual honesty. This discussion recognises the setbacks inherent to the project, and the multiplicity of approaches on which it draws. The work is likely never to finish.
At a minimum, the Science of Democracy 2.0 creates new avenues for research. At its most ambitious, it aims to establish a new paradigm for democratic theory and empirical political science.
In my view, ‘the sciences of the democracies’ (echoing the title of the recent book this series has inspired) are indicative of the nature of the project, as well as its tensions. The project reminds me of the great scientific systems in the early modern era, influenced by the Enlightenment. Here, there is a spirit at work which aims to amass, categorise and taxonomise a vast amount of data.
Yet, at the same time, any such impression is rendered problematic by the choice of plural form: we are dealing with the Sciences of Democracies and not with a Science of Democracy. Context reigns here.
This intellectual effort sits at the opposing end of Michael Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki’s The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies from 1975. Crozier et al’s focus was on a top-down approach: how to make modern democracies more efficient by accommodating, through institutional apparatuses, the ever-increasing demands of the citizens of their time.
This series rests on different and distinct premises. It takes the mantle from work previously carried out in democratic theory which was abandoned in the mid-1950s and never came to fruition. The project exploring the meaning of democracy, initiated by Arne Næss’ for the UN commission in the late 1940s, and elaborated upon in the subsequent years, comprises the foundations of this current discussion on democracy.
This signals broader intellectual aims and ambitions but also carries epistemic significance. Tellingly, the abandonment of Næss’ project coincided with the rise of behaviouralist political science in the US. This rise would quickly gain popularity across the world.
The crux of the argument is that we have as many forms of democracy as we can potentially observe and describe, drawing on five sources: individual, group, textual, non-textual and non-human (ie the ethno-quantic domain), each of which forms a data-mountain. It calls us to think of democracy, and all things democratic, in conditions of (radical) multiplicity.
We need an open, non-dogmatic understanding of the field of democratic theory. Binary oppositions, such as democracy versus autocracy, offer little insight
This allows for an open, non-dogmatic understanding of the field of democratic theory. Simplistic binary oppositions, such as democracy versus autocracy, offer little insight into the matter. A 'science of the autocracies’ should accompany the sciences of the democracies.
By acknowledging the polysemy of the term 'democracy', contributors to this series are intentionally 'crowding the ring'; letting the various meanings of democracy, as manifested in the ethno-quantic domain, crop up in their analysis. Theorists of democracy and political scientists shall only benefit from this practice. It allows for a genuine pluralistic conceptualisation of democracy rather than simplistic notions.
This practice is often posed in terms of data collection, and from there, an association with positivism and empiricism is just a stone’s throw away. This suspicion is reinforced when one comes across passages that underline the descriptive nature of the project.
In stressing the need for 'disciplining the discipline', descriptive research seems to be the bedrock upon which the project stands; hence, Gagnon's reference in his book to a 'democratic theory from a hitherto unproduced, and therefore untapped, body of basic descriptive research'. Description comes first, theory follows.
This seems to be a recurrent line of criticism. To begin with, Matthew Flinders speaks of 'positivistic and technocratic infection' when discussing the overemphasis on data mining. Michael Saward employs Quentin Skinner to remind us that descriptions of democracy are always evaluative descriptions. Finally, Michael Freeden underlines that in the social sciences and humanities, 'we never describe'.
Any account of social science requires a theoretical framework, lest it fall back into positivism and crude empiricism
It is always the task of selecting and interpreting, in other words, to understand – verstehen, in Max Weber’s terms. Of course, that is not to say that empirical research does not hold its value. The separation of contemporary political theory from empirical research, for example, is a lamentable fact. Nonetheless, any account of social science requires a theoretical framework, lest it fall back into positivism and crude empiricism.
In sum, the Science of Democracy 2.0 offers rich and thought-provoking ideas, presented in a collective spirit and open to critical evaluations. This new stage in the life of the series dares to re-establish democracy on a novel and more stimulating footing.
