Measures on Democracy

Introduction

While covering a lot of territory, democratic theory is not completely unbounded. Contributors to the enterprise all address questions pertaining to the collective construction, distribution, application, and limitation of political authority. These questions define the boundaries of the democratic concourse, the sum of communication about democracy. Within these borders may be found a heartland where practitioners consider what rule by the people and the political equality it implies can mean in contemporary complex societies that also value liberty and efficiency. While it would be nice to be able to specify more precisely a common set of problems that democratic theorists try to resolve, along with a set of standards for what constitute adequate solutions, I believe that is not possible. For such standards emerge in the process of dialogue across theorists (and others), and their content may change with time.

The Polyarchy Dataset has the advantage of relying on "objective" and easily available data. However, the contrast between subjective and objective indicators should not be overstated, since the selection and operationalisation of the indicators are shaped by subjective judgements.

A ) Dahl's measure of polyarchy

One common approach to specifying the democratization process is to differentiate between two phases: (a) the initial transition from an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regime to an electoral democracy and (b) the subsequent consolidation of the democracy. The transition to and consolidation of democracy are often viewed as distinct processes driven by different actors and facilitated by different conditions. The transition process is oriented around the undermining of an authoritarian regime and the emergence of nascent democratic institutions and procedures. The consolidation process entails a much broader and more complex process of institutionalization of the new democratic rules for political life. As the reverse waves of democratization suggest, a transition does not always lead to consolidation.

Central to any definition of democracy is electoral representation by means of free elections and representative government. The concept of polyarchy (i.e., rule by many) is an attempt by Robert Dahl to develop an empirical definition of the process of democratization as well as elaborating a set of normative criteria for deciding whether or not a political system can be counted as a democracy. Polyarchy, as presented by Dahl, should be understood as a process developing a set of institutions that comes close to what one could call the ideal type of democracy.

Therefore, that public power is essential and authority is effectively controlled by societal organizations and civil associations (e.g., interest groups and political parties). Hence, in Dahl's view, the extent to which these societal actors can and do operate autonomously, as well as independently from the state, will enhance the democratic quality of a polity. Obviously, central to the adequate functioning of polyarchy is not only the existence and working of institutions, but also the existence and actual room for maneuver of societal groups and their organization. The institutionalization of the democratic process of accountable government is a prerequisite, not yet the establishment of a regime as a fully fledged ...