The first section of the essay describes characteristics (ruler, public realm) that the authors themselves acknowledge to be applicable not only to just nominal democracies but to authoritarian and other types of systems as well. Though they attempt to further nail down a concrete definition through their use of elections and citizenship these too could be applied to a number of non-democracies. Many regimes in the past have held on to the semblance of elections and granted near universal suffrage but no one could call Panama under Noriega or Mugabe's current rule in Zimbabwe democracies.
However, the authors do a better job at boiling down the concept of democracy with their discussion of procedures. Even in this sections though, the broad definitions fail to make any sort of distinction between any nations claiming democratic status today. Many nations like Russia can fit within all of these procedures but many political analysts argue over the use of the term democracy when applied to this nation. Certainly if the term is to continue to be used in modern political discourse it has to be further defined to allow for true assessment and analysis of nations without depending on terms like "differently democratic" (243) that perilously allow for broad application without any standard for evaluation or measurement.
For Schmitter and Karl it seems that most regimes in the modern world can be classified as democracies. Unfortunately, if we are to truly stand by this concept of democracy give the vast array of nations claiming this title, there must be further analysis of the term.
1 comment:
Schmitter and Karl’s piece “ What Democracy is… as Is Not” is in an of itself a guideline of sorts to distinguish between what is a democracy and what is not. However, this article is reminiscent of the “ Clash of Civilizations by Huntington because Schmitter and Karl provide a definition that is much too broad; consequently, different systems are not democratic or not, but rather different types of democracy. Their definition is too general to help distinguish between democracies—ultimately useless because it is meant to encompass all nations that claim this type of government.
The first section of the essay is successful because the authors claim that the determining factors are neither the leader nor the public realm, inclusive of all regimes, but rather the focus on the citizens. They maintain that a country is only democratic to the extent that it has citizens, a concept that supports Isaiah Berlin’s notion of positive liberty and negative liberty. Whether it be “ freedom from” or “ freedom to” a system is still catering to the citizens and allowing them an optimal status of citizenship—to be able to vote and participate in government with minimal restrictions. The
The authors go on to describe elections as one of the determining principles of democracies; however they are much too vague to actually engender a concrete idea. They say that election that are honest, regular and accessible to citizens are the building blocks of democracy, yet they also stipulate that elections that ostracize certain parties and restrict certain portions of the population can also claim to be democratic. Typically, we say that the regime implemented by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua was a Communist takeover. They too had elections—biased in all ways to Communist front. By their standards, this can be called democratic.
Furthermore, Schimitter and Karl discuss the procedures that keep democracy thriving. I think that this part of the article has much more basis and rationality because it introduces democracy as a conglomerate of processes, and not just an ideology. They discuss the ways in which democracies differ and claim that democracies can have subtypes that are in accord with the stipulated principles, yet it seems all too hasty and nonsensical. For the sake of accuracy if indeed all components of democracy “ should be seen as either indicators of this or that type of democracy,” then Schmitter and Karl should discuss these types of democracy ( 243). Grouping different regimes under one term when there is no uniformity in performance makes no sense. This manner of grouping can only beget more confusion. There must be more analysis, because as this article stands a myriad of different systems can claim a model of democratic governance.
Post a Comment