I don't see democracy as an ideology. It exists in so many variants, in different countries with radically different systems. It means elections, where people choose their government. it also means accountability to the people -- though this can be achieved without elections too. Wonder if you agree. Thanks, Kishan

Dear Jean-Paul and colleagues! Thank you for this interesting question. I agree with Kishan S Rana in that democracy is not an ideology. I think Phil is warning us against turning democracy into an ideology based on exclusive notions of the good and the desirable. I agree with him that we should be very careful. However, I don't see definitions pushing us in that direction. For me, the idea of democracy differs from ideologies (-isms) in that, firstly, it is inclusive (because it wants to weight power equally), because it is not oriented towards a utopian end (as is the case with ideologies), because it is a process of negotiation under the condition of equally distributed power. Nevertheless, one cannot dispense with certain basic principles when talking about democracy. Quite simply because that's what language is. We have to have an idea of a thing in order to have a word for it. And this idea can be defined because it makes the word and what it means accessible, transparent, but also open to attack, criticism and discussion. A table is a table only as long as we have similar ideas of the table. It can be round, square, have four legs, three or two, be large or small, but it is always a table. It is the same with democracy. Its forms are many, but we should agree on what its basis is in order to call it democracy. I think this has little to do with ideology, but with language itself.

Democracy ist not an ideology, but it can be distorted to look like something it is not (something authoritarian). For example, if it is (theoretically) reduced to the idea of equality (as critics in the 19th century feared, e. g. Thomas Mann). Or if it becomes (practically) a mere matrix, an empty claim that does to impact reality.

I find Paine's description "democracy as a task" very good. It reminds me of the definition of open society by Popper, who sees it as the way to individual liberty by applying social techniques, whereas totalitarian thinking on the opposite alludes to collective thinking, a tribal community and a final destination. As others said before, I also think democracy is so different in many countries, that by itself is is the best method of realising diversity. This way, it represents the open society as a model, since it stays open to criticism and further development.

Democracy has it problems. Think of the term "guided democracy", which is used for Russia for example, but we can see aspects also in Western countries: controlled state propaganda through media, uncontrolled lobbyism, high level of revolving door effect, which makes it easy for elites to set agendas, that undermine freedom in forming opinions, which are the basis of the main element democracy: free elections. But I think, the great thing with democracy is, that every generation as civil society has the possibility to invent a new version of grassroots democracy, which makes democracy fit for changing times. And this really is democracy is all about in my perspective.

Kishan, Markus, and Simone - thank you each so much for your responses! This makes sense to me. In a 1992 paper, Joseph Schull argued that an ideology is a discourse. Given that "democracy" hasn't a single "discourse" (there are rather "democracies" with their own "discourses" or "concourses") - we can safely say there is no official ideology of it. I guess there would be dominant ideologies though? Such as electoralism (which Kishan invoked) or majoritarianism, liberalism, etc. A further consideration is that these terms are, like "democracy", not holding one definition - but many. So perhaps there is no "democratism" and rather "democratisms"?

I forgot to share the link to the Schull article: Article What is Ideology? Theoretical Problems and Lessons from Sovi...

I think we have to differentiate between the idea and the practise of democracy. Look at socialism: It is regarded as an ideology, but it is also a practice with different outcomes in different nations. Look at capitalism: It is a practical economic and social order, a term in science (used very differently), and from the perspective of left-wing criticism clearly an ideology. They have in common, that people formed reality with these concepts in mind.

I think, the relation between theory and practice is relevant. An ideology is something, that frames the Overton window of accepted discourse in a society. This ideology will always marginalise these, that question its very existence. In the end it can end up in suppressing freedom, enslaving people or justify such means to save the power of the ideology, when the gap between theory and practice becomes too big. We have no guarantee whatsoever, that this can happen with any concept, since capitalism and socialism and all other great concepts before to form humanity had good intentions and wanted only the „good" for the people.

So, coming back to your initial question: If democracy becomes an ideology, that is not anchored as a practice in reality any more, that this is not ok. But if this ever happens, wouldn’t that mean that democracy as a concept has failed?