In his essay, John Capps raises a number of difficult questions: "What should we make of how 'democracy' is used in so many different ways? What can we learn from this? And does this make the job of explaining and defending it harder?" (See: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-open-texture-of-democracy/)
His questions make me think of a recent article by Pascal D. König & colleagues (see: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00104140211066213?journalCode=cpsa) which argues that not only do people support democracy - they support different kinds of democracy in their polities!
There is something of a "model wars" afoot here where e.g. supporters of "liberal democracy" are struggling against supporters of "direct democracy" and they are being struggled against (or just not engaged by) supporters of "stealth democracy". There are, to my understanding of the empirics here, usually more players than this.
That point also returns me to the so-called "unbreakable law of >=2 democracies" that University of Canberra students and I formulated years ago: we wager that you won't find a polity in the world (perhaps you could in just the smallest village or family?) in which just 1 kind of democracy prevails - there will always be 2 or more kinds in play.
So what, indeed, should we make of how 'democracy' is used in so many different ways? Are these model wars good for democratisation/the future of democracy or not? How can we amplify the good if there is any?
Democracy, in its very original concept, is quite distant of what today is called democracy and the various strange types of it!! What I would make is to recover the deep strategic human values we all need and expect of Democracy. We need to end inequality and foster an integral sustainability on all aspects of our lives, which, a representative democratic election gives, some temporal authorities, through various administrative periods, the responsibility to design ways and strategies to make it possible. Democracy is not a political game to win power to solve particular interests, but the good and wellbeing of everyone, everywhere, whatever the political party is in power.
Jean-Paul Gagnon To start with, the fact that democracy is used in so many different ways can create confusion and disagreement, but it also reflects the complexity and diversity of democratic practices and institutions across different cultures and contexts. For instance, the debates and tensions between supporters of different models of democracy can also be healthy and productive, as long as they are grounded in reasoned arguments and a commitment to democratic principles such as equality, participation, and accountability.
However, the danger is that these debates can become polarized and adversarial, and lead to the exclusion or demonization of alternative perspectives. This can undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of democratic processes and institutions, and fuel populism, authoritarianism, and polarization.
To amplify the positive aspects of these model wars, we need to foster a culture of democratic dialogue and deliberation that values diversity, pluralism, and mutual respect. This requires creating spaces and platforms for citizens and stakeholders to engage in constructive and inclusive debates about the merits and limitations of different models of democracy, and to co-create innovative and context-specific democratic solutions.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that democracy is not a fixed or static concept, but a dynamic and evolving process that is constantly being shaped and redefined by changing social, economic, and technological conditions. Therefore, our understanding and practice of democracy should be open to experimentation, adaptation, and learning, and informed by evidence-based research and evaluation.