Professor Frank Hendriks argues in his essay here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/selection-the-key-to-studying-democracy/) that:

"In the study of democratic governance and innovation, there is not only continuous variation, but also continuous selection pressure. Some concepts survive better than others"

I would like to invite you to interrogate why this is the case.

From my point of view, I have come across far too many truly excellent and inspirational ideas of democracy that have essentially been ignored simply because they did not come through the "correct" academic channels (whatever those are purported to be). So it does not suffice to argue that some ideas survive better than others without demonstrating why that is so and on a case-by-case basis.

If I were asked to "bet the house" here I would say that the baloney of empire, prestige, and insular (that is closed to others) publishing networks are chiefly to blame for why some ideas of democracy are popular whilst most others are left to die, almost like an unloved plant.

What do you think?

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/selection-the-key-to-studying-democracy/