Michael Saward argues: "it is important for us to know what people have made of democracy – or what they have made and could make with it. It may well mean some things, plural. And lots of different people and groups may have answers to offer. Meanings will be multiple, possibly incommensurable, as will any models built on them."
https://theloop.ecpr.eu/democracy-may-mean-multiple-things-but-that-should-not-stop-us-recasting-our-stumbling-democratic-politics/
Which examples, do you think or guess, are not well known to mainstream democracy studies and democratic theory?
Jean-Paul Gagnon Well, we know that democracy is government by the people for the people. Beyond that, I am afraid that Sawards words sound like waffle to me. Different societies have made different decisions as would be expected based on norms and values, as well as power relationships internal to any society. Of course, it is going to mean some things PLURAL. This sounds like an idiotic statement to me. Of course different societies will have different meanings and approaches. Sorry, but this is just some random person trying to make himself sound intellectual and important, in my humble opinion. Politics needs to be more grounded in social science in order to provide any meaningful answers.
My first thought about this question is, that there has been a very decisive shift in the notion of democracy since the days of its first conscious implementations.
First of all, what we think of as democracy is not resembling the athenian democracy. It was different in the base (back then, only grown-up, male citizens of Athens were able to vote), in the process (they came together in Ecclesia rather than casting votes in a election) and the result (they directly approved or denied a certain proposition). Nowadays, the base is generally wider, the process is by the process of marking a ballot and the result most often is an election of a representative.
This leads to several secondary differences. What I want to focus here, and give as input, is the systemic dependency on representation. When we nowadays think of democratic nations, we think of nations where the population decides in a quantitative measurement who the person representing this nation in a function is.
I found this system to be flawed because of this representation, and that it is the underlying problem for several fractions of our society with representative democracy in general. To transition from the first question to the second, now, is a simple step. I propose the question (for which I have several ideas on about how to answer it, but I am open for discussion): "How could a democracy without representation possible?"
Kind regards
Democracy is a political system that has evolved over time and has been interpreted and understood in different ways. At its core, democracy is a form of government in which power is held by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. The following are some of the main interpretations of what democracy has meant and what it might mean:
What democracy might mean in the future will depend on how it evolves and adapts to new challenges and opportunities. For example, with the rise of digital technologies, there may be new ways to involve citizens in decision-making and increase transparency and accountability. Additionally, as societies become more diverse, democracy may need to find new ways to accommodate and represent different voices and perspectives.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology