DEMOCRACY

Democracy

Democracy

Introduction

Democracy is a concept that has its roots in ancient Greece. Since that time, political philosophers have derived a variety of understandings of democracy theories and their normative assessments. It is possible, however, to identify a democratic nucleus that is inherent to all democratic theories. Identifying a core concept of democracy allows us not only to clarify our understanding of democracy but also to locate political communication—its importance and functions—more precisely inside democratic thinking (Hoffman, 2006, 69) .

The family of democracy theories can be structured along three categories: (1) normative foundation, (2) institutional design, and (3) quality of functioning. The first category refers to certain ideal conceptions and finds its expression in versions such as liberal democracy or social democracy (often discussed as procedural versus substantial forms of democracy), strong (participative) democracy, feminist and gender democracy, or deliberative democracy. The second category allows us to differentiate democracies according to their institutional setting, such as parliamentarian and presidential democracies or majoritarian and consensus democracies. The third category distinguishes democracies with respect to their gradual democratic quality, which is assessed by certain standards (such as polyarchy, liberal democracy). Political regimes with lower democratic quality are regarded as defective democracies (e.g., illiberal, delegative, or electoral democracy).

Analysis of the Concept

Political communication as public communication is inherent to each understanding of democracy and is necessary for the working of the other basic democratic institutions. The importance of public communication is already underlined in system theory by the input functions of interest articulation, selection, and aggregation as well as by the special function of political communication itself, which stresses the importance of government information. In democracies these functions obtain even more importance because they are the foundation of democratic legitimacy (Jones, 2005, 58). The legitimacy of democratic rule is unthinkable without public communication. This exchange includes not only the complex processes of transferring individual and collective preferences to the political system and the public explanation and justification of governmental decision but also the central function of control expressed by public criticism through mass media or arenas of civil society.

Although this basic positive significance of political communication for democracy is widely accepted, one should not ignore its questionable aspects, which can undermine the democratic process and with it the legitimation of democracy. One main reason for ambivalent development lies in the transformation of political communication, which can be understood as a process of professionalisation and change from party democracy to media democracy (Barber, 2004, 93).

This process means an increasing importance of the public arena accompanied by known attributes: growing importance of public agenda setting, (over)simplification of political arguments, persons gaining more significance than the party ideology or program, and electoral campaigns being more strongly influenced by marketing strategies (organised by spin doctors). One negative aspect lies in the unequal power structure of political communication, which can affect all dimensions of democracy, as prominently discussed in Italy under Berlusconi, who combined private and public media power. Furthermore, public communication inside civil society can be influenced by power structures ...