essay

Democracy and its critics was published in 1989, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at a time when liberal democracy was on the verge to ‘defeat’ alternate forms of political regime. Using an empirical and normative perspective, Dahl assesses the strengths and superiority of the democratic process throughout its various ‘great transformations’, defending it against its main critics: anarchism and guardianship. Exploring the history and different interpretations of democracy, Dahl specifically engages with the following question: how does the size of a demos change the nature of the democratic process? In order to answer this question, he develops the concept of ‘polyarchy’: a political order characterised by competition and inclusion, dimensions vital to establish the democratic process in large modern nation-states. Indeed, Dahl perceives the ideal Athenian model of direct democracy, as a utopian political regime, which he deems unachievable beyond the small city-state. Polyarchy on the contrary is the real-world approximation of true democracy on a large-scale as it analyses real institutions. Dahl’s contribution to the contested debate on democracy, although very flawed if we consider today’s political spectrum, still remains important. This why one can ask if Dahl's conception of ‘polyarchy’ is the best way of thinking about the contested concept of democracy. This essay will argue that Dahl’s theoretical model of polyarchy is a good way of thinking about the contested concept of democracy. First, I will argue that polyarchy is a better way of thinking about the concept of democracy, in comparison to the Athenian model of democracy. Nonetheless, I will still point out that polyarchy does no longer answer the demands of today...

... middle of paper ...

...the concept of ‘unpolitical democracy’, terms both coined by Rosanvallon (Rosanvallon, 2008: 264). Moreover, as the example of China and Russia illustrate, the road to becoming a full liberal democracy in this century, depends on both political institutions and economic systems (Zakaria, 2004: 91-94).

To conclude, Dahl’s conception of polyarchy is a better way of thinking of the contested concept of democracy. Indeed polyarchy engages with a more realistic and feasible perspective than the idealized conception of the Greek polis. Particularly in respect to political participation in modern nation-states. Nonetheless, this essay also argued that polyarchy falls well short of responding to certain challenges that democracy might encounter and undermines many non-political aspects important to the democratic process as it remains an approximation of democratic ideals.