Notes on Defining Democracy: Two Meanings, History, and Practice
Two Core Definitions of Democracy
Democracy has at least two meanings in political discourse:
Meaning 1 (direct/participatory democracy): a government in which all or most citizens participate directly in holding office or making policy.
Meaning 2 (the democratic method): the governance approach of most modern democracies, often called representative democracy, where leadership changes hands through competition for the people's vote.
Historical contrasts:
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton worried the new government might be too democratic; George Mason worried it was not democratic enough.
Today, virtually all Americans agree that exercising political power should be democratic.
Broader usage:
Democracy is sometimes invoked to describe schools, universities, corporations, trade unions, churches, and even aims of foreign policy if the regime or institution adopts democratic principles.
Distinctions matter:
The two definitions are related but not identical; in this course, democracy usually refers to Schumpeter's democratic method unless specified as direct/participatory.
Direct or Participatory Democracy (Aristotle and the Polis)
The Aristotelian ideal: rule of the many; a government where the majority directly participates in officeholding and policy decisions.
Aristotle's context: Greece in the 4th century BCE; the polis was small; citizenship included all free adult male property holders; enslaved people, women, minors, and those without property were excluded.
The New England town meeting:
An approximation of the Aristotelian ideal: adult citizens gather to vote directly on major issues and expenditures.
Growth and complexity led to:
representative town meetings: a large number of elected representatives, perhaps $200-300$, to vote on town affairs; or
representative government: a small number of elected city councilors making decisions.
Summary: direct democracy emphasizes direct citizen participation; its feasibility declines as scale and complexity increase.
The Democratic Method (Schumpeter) and Its Implications
Schumpeter's definition: the democratic method is the institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which leaders acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote.
Also called representative democracy; some views emphasize the public's broad deliberation, but in practice we expect leadership competition.
Why some oppose direct democracy: it can yield bad decisions when people act on fleeting passions or are swayed by demagogues.
Contemporary tension: leaders who disagree with voter decisions may downplay the will of the people to justify their stance.
Example: referenda to increase public funding for private schools.
Opponents speak approvingly of the will of the people; supporters claim mass misunderstanding.
Terminology:
when the term democracy is used without qualifier in this text, it follows Schumpeter's meaning; direct democracy is described as direct or participatory.
The benchmarking idea:
Schumpeter's definition provides basic benchmarks to judge the extent to which any given political system is democratic.
Non-Democratic Systems: Definitions and Examples
A political system is nondemocratic to the extent that it denies equal voting rights to part of society or severely limits, or outright prohibits, civil and political freedoms necessary for a truly competitive struggle for the people's vote.
Examples of nondemocratic systems include: absolute monarchies, empires, military dictatorships, authoritarian systems, and totalitarian states.
The study of comparative politics helps explain how different types of political systems arise, persist, and change.
The United States was once far less democratic than it is today and it was so not by accident, but by design.
As discussed in the next chapter, the framers did not use the word democracy in the Constitution; they wrote about a republican form of government, i.e., representative democracy; cross-references note civil liberties/civil rights (chapters 5 and 6) and political participation (chapter 8).
The United States was not born as a full fledged representative democracy; its representative democratic character remains a work in progress, despite progress over the past half-century.
What Makes a Representative Democracy Work? Competition, Participation, and Boundaries
For any representative democracy to work, there must be genuine competition for leadership:
individuals and parties must be able to run for office;
communications through speeches, the press, meetings, and the Internet must be free;
voters must perceive that a meaningful choice exists.
What counts as a meaningful choice? How many offices should be elected versus appointed? How many candidates or parties can exist before choices become hopelessly confused?
Campaign finance realities:
In the United States, many offices (executive, judicial, and legislative) are elective, and most campaign money comes from industry, labor unions, and private individuals.
In some European democracies, very few offices are elective and much campaign funding comes from the government.
Direct democracy as a reclaimable option in a modern, complex society:
allowing neighborhood-level governance (community control), or
requiring those affected by a government program to participate in its formulation (citizen participation).
Direct democracy in practice:
measure choices on ballots via referenda;
proponents defend it as the will of the people; opponents warn about mass misunderstanding.
Framers' view on will and the public good:
they did not think the will of the people was synonymous with the public interest; they favored representative democracy because elected officials could best ascertain the public interest.
Cross-chapter context:
civil liberties and civil rights (Chs. 5–6); political participation (Ch. 8).
Direct Democracy in Practice: Mechanisms, Participation, and Consequences
Mechanisms of direct democracy:
referenda, ballot measures, and other direct inputs on policy issues.
Balancing direct input and representative structures:
direct participation is practical for straightforward, locally salient issues; for complex, large-scale policy, representative oversight may provide more stability and long-term consideration.
Ethical and practical implications:
balancing majority rule with minority rights;
protecting civil liberties; ensuring informed deliberation and guarding against manipulation by powerful interests.
Real-world relevance:
modern democracies face trade-offs between efficiency and deliberation; institutional design should match the scale and complexity of governance.
Connections and Context
The two meanings of democracy intersect and sometimes clash in debates over policy and reform.
The US constitutional design sought to blend popular participation with institutional checks that reduce the risk of unstable majoritarian decisions.
Ongoing progress toward more inclusive participation reflects both constitutional design and evolving political culture.