Institutional theories rooted in the works of Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Dahl still dominate the study of democracy. But, argues Ryusaku Yamada, this Science of Democracy 2.0 discussion reveals the emergence of another current: scholars who engage democracy from critical perspectives and who seek to move beyond such frameworks
For thirty years, I have asked myself whether I can truly call myself a scholar of democratic theory within political studies. I am Japanese, a Buddhist. I entered the field of democracy studies through an initial sociological interest in theories of mass society.
In 2006, I published Democracy and Mass Society: A Japanese Debate. It is based on my PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Sheffield. At the time, however, my work was misread as belonging to 'Japanese studies' or 'East Asian studies', rather than being recognised as a contribution to democratic theory. Perhaps the truth was even harsher: scholars did not consider the book a necessary contribution to the field at all.
I translated into Japanese Carole Pateman’s The Disorder of Women, a feminist work whose importance democracy scholars still fail to genuinely appreciate. And I have almost completed a book manuscript on Karl Mannheim’s political and social thought during his British years. It focuses on Mannheim's reflections on mass democracy. None of these intellectual pursuits have placed me within the mainstream of democratic theory.
Both in Japan and abroad, I found few researchers who shared my concerns. Under such conditions, a question of scholarly identity constantly haunted me: what, in fact, is my true discipline?
I recall these personal experiences because this latest development in The Loop’s Science of Democracy discussion demonstrates vividly that an increasing number of scholars now recognise the importance of democracy studies from non-Western perspectives. They also rate the necessity of approaches that extend beyond the narrow confines of twentieth-century political science. That realisation allows me, perhaps somewhat optimistically, to state with conviction: the times have indeed changed.
A project that seeks to collect words related to democracy from across the globe will, understandably, provoke scepticism. Its scope seems potentially endless, and the mass of data it generates can only prove daunting.
How could such data be processed? What might it teach us about democracy? Such questions are inevitable. Yet I believe that assembling a database of this kind is far more than an exercise in linguistic cataloguing.
Even in countries where no precise equivalent of the English 'democracy' exists, there may be terms with comparable meanings
First, even in countries where no precise equivalent of the English 'democracy' exists, there may nevertheless be terms with comparable meanings, accompanied by historical practices that embody them. Merely recognising that such histories exist can serve as a powerful challenge to the conventional assumption that certain European and American models constitute the universal standard, theoretically and historically. Importantly, this does not require a full synthesis of all collected data.
Simply making such material searchable and accessible would already carry great significance.
Second, by collecting not only academic terminology but also the words used by people in everyday contexts, we can illuminate what people mean when they invoke 'democracy'.
In Japan, for instance, politicians and ordinary citizens typically equate democracy with the act of choosing representatives in elections. Political participation they see as nothing more than casting a ballot. Few possess the imagination to move beyond this narrow view. Encouragingly, however, the number of people engaged in NGOs and other forms of civic activity has been growing. Yet it remains far from clear that the Japanese regard such practices as forms of democracy in the sense of public participation.
By collecting the words people use in everyday contexts, we can illuminate what people mean when they invoke 'democracy'
My point here is not to criticise from an academic pedestal, as if people ought to have acquired university-level knowledge of theories of democracy. On the contrary, it is people themselves who live democracy. If we recall Václav Havel’s idea of 'the power of the powerless', it is also people who sustain and deepen democracy. For this reason, discovering what images and associations the word democracy evokes among people is essential as a means of reflective self-examination. It is not only for scholars but also for the public.
Third, by preserving in such a database terms that younger scholars no longer know, we can revive debates that were once central but have since faded from view. In 1959, the leading Japanese political thinker Masao Maruyama observed that democracy has three aspects: 'democratic government', 'democratic society', and 'democratic way of life'. He warned that because scholars did not observe these distinctions, debates often fell into confusion, even when everyone used the word democracy.
In preserving descriptive terms for 'democracy' that younger scholars no longer know, we can revive debates that have faded from view
My present concern lies precisely with the 'democratic way of life', a theme now largely neglected. One dimension of it is the 'democratic personality'. Contemporary scholars have begun to reconsider the notion of the 'authoritarian personality' in this age of populism. The theme of the 'democratic personality', however, remains strikingly absent from mainstream theories of democracy.
Thus, when I attended the ECPR Joint Sessions for the first time, in Prague during May 2025, I presented a paper that excavated the issue of the 'democratic personality', which Mannheim, John Dewey, and Harold D. Lasswell had once examined. In that paper I re-examined democratic personality from a Buddhist perspective. In Buddhism, 'life' encompasses not only the human but also the non-human. My paper therefore serves as a telling example of what has been forgotten.
That even such 'non-mainstream' research as mine might now find a legitimate place within democracy studies offers significant value to thinkers like me. I hope that the Science of Democracy 2.0 discussion, and the book it inspired, will be widely read by those who wish to reflect on what it means to be 'democratic'.
Ryusaku holds a PhD in politics from the University of Sheffield.
His fields of expertise include democratic theory, mass society theory, citizenship studies and feminist political theory.
Ryusaku is currently undertaking a study of Karl Mannheim’s political and social thought in England in the 1930s and 1940s.
He contributed a book chapter, ‘Mannheim, mass society and democratic theory’, to The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim, edited by D. Kettler and V. Meja (Anthem Press, 2018).
