So I've been doing a lot of reading mainly to do with democracy, its meanings and its histories and the problem that I keep running into is the impossibility of truly knowing democracy. If we are to understand, as the literature reflects, that democracy is an indefinite term with any number of possible meanings, should we then take democracy on a case by case basis? Are we to understand that it is completely contextual and that it relies on time and space, and therefore there can never be one true understanding of democracy, only many?

  • Does "true democracy" not inevitably lead to Tyranny of the Majority? If it does, then the answer is that we should not, regardless of whether we can or not. – Separatrix May 13 '20 at 12:27
  • 7
    I think the question could be a lot more clear if you summerize the problem you have with the 2nd link you supplied. "Impossibility of truly knowing democracy". Personally i see a lot of flexibilities with democracy, but not so much that I can't pinpoint when it stops being democracy and e.g. becomes tyranny of the majority – Thomas Koelle May 13 '20 at 12:52
  • 3
    Is this an "objective questions about governments, policies and political processes." it seems somewhat subjective and/or philosophical. – RedGrittyBrick May 13 '20 at 16:35
  • 1
    @RickSmith: yeah, but this question is basically: (1) name drop term that admits many definitions (2) link drop pdf without summarizing any of it (3) question is basically "Ain't that so? Disquss." VTC – Fizz May 13 '20 at 18:58
  • 1
    @RickSmith: and yeah, I've looked briefly at pdf. It's some interview that doesn't have a simple/clear summary upfront as to what the point actually is. Even Wikipedia's of Dunn doesn't help much with that "He is the author of The Cunning of Unreason (2001), a work that discusses how the limits of human knowledge and rationality prevent democratic republicanism from achieving all that it promises. His reflections upon the vicissitudes of democracy as a political ideal have continued with Setting the People Free: the Story of Democracy (2005)." Go buy me books and time to read them. – Fizz May 13 '20 at 19:07

Democracy is a worldview, not particular object or system. Democracy is the idea that the root of governance lies in the people being governed, not in an elite group, a bloodline, a particular person, a system or ideology, or some other entity or artifact. One doesn't 'know' a worldview; one lives within it, or not.

Saying that "democracy is an indefinite term with any number of possible meanings" is misleading. We could easily say that "automobile is an indefinite term with any number of possible meanings" because we can walk down the street and see hundreds of different makes and models, all of which are called automobiles. But that doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between an automobile and a motorcycle, or between and automobile and a horse-drawn carriage. There are different kinds of democracy because there are different systems that try to ensure that governmental power ultimately devolves to citizens, each with its strengths and weaknesses. And choosing a system of democratic governance is far more contentious that choosing an automobile — the stakes are far higher, and people become far more attached to their preferences — but the fact that the choice is contentious does not imply that the options come from different worldviews.

We all know what democracy is. What we need to be wary of are those people willing to use the language of democracy as a cover for decidedly undemocratic intentions. If you want to know whether something is democratic, look to see if it shifts power and authority towards the mass of citizenry or away from it.

  • I mean yes, there is an ideology associated with democracy many times but it can take form in a very literal sense. I'd say it's probably both an ideology and and a system. – Chipster May 14 '20 at 6:38

I would agree that any definition of democracy has to be contextual to be meaningful. For some other relevant points of reference, check out the Wikipedia article on "radical democracy". There are at least three distinct stands of this perspective but they share "the idea that democracy is an un-finished, inclusive, continuous and reflexive process." There is also a book by C. Douglas Lummis with the same title, Radical Democracy. Lummis points out that as the term democracy "literally means a political state in which the people (demos) have the power (kratia)" it is, by that definition, impossible to fix its meaning further.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .