A thorough examination of the past and present experience of representative democracies and how it relates to the normative claims of democratic theory.
What today's political thinkers can learn from the radical democratic movements of twentieth-century America This is a major work of history and political theory that traces radical democratic thought in America across the twentieth century, seeking to recover ideas that could reenergize democratic activism today. The question of how citizens should behave as they struggle to create a more democratic society has haunted the United States throughout its history. Should citizens restrict themselves to patient persuasion or take to the streets and seek to impose change? Marc Stears argues that anyone who continues to wrestle with these questions could learn from the radical democratic tradition that was forged in the twentieth century by political activists, including progressives, trade unionists, civil rights campaigners, and members of the student New Left. These activists and their movements insisted that American campaigners for democratic change should be free to strike out in whatever ways they thought necessary, so long as their actions enhanced the political virtues of citizens and contributed to the eventual triumph of the democratic cause. Reevaluating the moral and strategic arguments, and the triumphs and excesses, of this radical democratic tradition, Stears contends that it still offers a compelling account of citizen behavior—one that is fairer, more inclusive, and more truly democratic than those advanced by political theorists today.
The triumph of democracy has been heralded as one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century, yet it seems to be in a relatively fragile condition in the United States, if one is to judge by the proliferation of editorials, essays, and books that focus on politics and distrust of government. Doubt and the Demands of Democratic Citizenship explores the reasons for public discontent and proposes an account of democratic citizenship appropriate for a robust democracy. David Hiley argues that citizenship is more than participating in the electoral process. It requires a capacity to participate in the deliberative process with other citizens who might disagree, a capacity that combines deep convictions with a willingness to subject those convictions. Hiley develops his argument by examining the connection between doubt and democracy generally, as well as through case studies of Socrates, Montaigne, and Rousseau, interpreting them in light of contemporary issues.
Democracy on demand is a most comprehensive analysis of the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of referendums and the challenges to modern democracy. It shows how democracy is vulnerable, and how it can be saved from demagogues.
"By Popular Demand tackles two important issues--increasing political participation and restoring trust in government--that are critical to the future of American democracy. John Gastil's careful research makes a solid contribution to the recent literature on the growing divide between the public, elections, and policy decisions. His solutions are worthy of our careful consideration."—Mark Baldassare, author of When Government Fails: The Orange County Bankruptcy (California 1998) and California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape (California 2000). "In an era of political cynicism, a new movement of citizen empowerment is afoot. Encouraging active involvement through community dialogue and deliberation, advocates of strong democracy are designing innovative processes in which ordinary citizens can work through difficult public issues by constructive and respectful talk. John Gastil's new book By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy by Deliberative Elections is a new landmark work in the literature of politics and communication and should be read by everyone interested in the revitalization of democracy."—Stephen W. Littlejohn, President Public Dialogue Consortium "By Popular Demand is a persuasively argued account of the deficiencies of the U.S. electoral system. Gastil provides a wealth of insights into the frequent disconnect between politicians and their constituents. His solution for the ails of popular representation--including on voters' ballots the correspondence between legislators' positions and those of citizen panels--should provoke spirited debate among scholars, journalists, and policymakers alike."—Mark A. Smith, University of Washington John Gastil makes a compelling case for a more deliberative approach to electing officials in the United States. He understands the potential for public deliberation and the barriers to it. Anyone interested in improving the representativeness of the electoral process should take note of this book and its provocative proposal. As Gastil masterfully demonstrates, a deliberative citizenry provides both the knowledge and will required to legitimate democratic governance."—David Mathews, President, Kettering Foundation "Hallelujah for John Gastil! He's right on target that citizens must regain their place in our politics and public life. His call to create more places for citizens to talk deeply about their concerns and hopes is one we must all heed."—Richard C. Harwood, Founder and President of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
Democratic Equilibrium: The Supply and Demand of Democracy defines a model for political change, change that results in either an increase or decrease in democracy. The book presents a model that builds upon the existing literature to bridge several major gaps in political change theory. This book provides a holistic supply and demand model that draws upon works from political science, economics, and history. The work conducts an econometric test of the model and validates the results with field research cases from Mexico, the Philippines, and Senegal. The econometric chapter is a rare quantitative analysis of the effects of violence and development upon democracy. This topic is central to contemporary academic and policy debates about how to create democracies, consolidate democracies, achieve development and improve security, especially within developing countries. This topic is especially timely as the Arab Spring represents a unique opportunity and challenge for democratic change across the Middle East and North Africa. Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt demonstrate that democracy studies remain just as relevant today as they were twenty years ago. The findings indicate that common structural explanations of democracy are incomplete since the structural relationships are not stable or constant over time. Instead, democratic change (or lack thereof) can be explained using a supply and demand model. Key actors (including the military, political parties, NGOs, the ruling regime, and civil society) are the suppliers and consumers that determine a country’s resulting level of democracy. However, stating that actors are important is a major over-simplification. Each key actor builds preferences based upon a variety of factors, most importantly: security, income, and the adoption of democratic norms. It is this key dynamic that explains why insurgency, poverty, and under-development do not have a linearly negative effect on democracy. Instead, these factors have a centripetal effect on political development, pulling a country’s government towards an intermediate state of political transition in which regimes stagnate in a partially democratic, partially autocratic regime type. Conversely, the model also explains why high income, democratic norms, and security do not necessarily lead to democratization in all cases.
Democracy is not easy. Citizens who disagree sharply about politics must nonetheless work together as equal partners in the enterprise of collective self-government. Ideally, this work would be conducted under conditions of mutual civility, with opposed citizens nonetheless recognizing one another's standing as political equals. But when the political stakes are high, and the opposition seems to us severely mistaken, why not drop the democratic pretences of civil partnership, and simply play to win? Why seek to uphold properly democratic relations with those who embrace political ideas that are flawed, irresponsible, and out of step with justice? Why sustain democracy with political foes? Drawing on extensive social science research concerning political polarization and partisan identity, Robert B. Talisse argues that when we break off civil interactions with our political opponents, we imperil relations with our political allies. In the absence of engagement with our political critics, our alliances grow increasingly homogeneous, conformist, and hierarchical. Moreover, they fracture and devolve amidst internal conflicts. In the end, our political aims suffer because our coalitions shrink and grow ineffective. Why sustain democracy with our foes? Because we need them if we are going to sustain democracy with our allies and friends.
"The conventional wisdom is that a growing middle class will give rise to democracy. Yet the middle classes of the developing world have grown at a remarkable pace over the past two decades, and much of this growth has taken place in countries that remain nondemocratic. Rosenfeld explains this phenomenon by showing how modern autocracies secure support from key middle-class constituencies. Drawing on original surveys, interviews, archival documents, and secondary sources collected from nine months in the field, she compares the experiences of recent post-communist countries, including Russia, the Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, to show that under autocracy, state efforts weaken support for democracy, especially among the middle class. When autocratic states engage extensively in their economies - by offering state employment, offering perks to those to those who are loyal, and threatening dismissal to those who are disloyal - the middle classes become dependent on the state for economic opportunities and career advancement, and, ultimately, do not support a shift toward democratization. Her argument explains why popular support for Ukraine's Orange Revolution unraveled or why Russians did not protest evidence of massive electoral fraud. The author's research questions the assumption that a rising share of educated, white-collar workers always makes the conditions for democracy more favorable, and why dependence on the state has such pernicious consequences for democratization"--
The end of apartheid in South Africa broke down political barriers, extending to all races the formal rights of citizenship, including the right to participate in free elections and parliamentary democracy. But South Africa remains one of the most economically polarized nations in the world. In The Politics of Necessity Elke Zuern forcefully argues that working toward greater socio-economic equality—access to food, housing, land, jobs—is crucial to achieving a successful and sustainable democracy. Drawing on interviews with local residents and activists in South Africa’s impoverished townships during more than a decade of dramatic political change, Zuern tracks the development of community organizing and reveals the shifting challenges faced by poor citizens. Under apartheid, township residents began organizing to press the government to address the basic material necessities of the poor and expanded their demands to include full civil and political rights. While the movement succeeded in gaining formal political rights, democratization led to a new government that instituted neo-liberal economic reforms and sought to minimize protest. In discouraging dissent and failing to reduce economic inequality, South Africa’s new democracy has continued to disempower the poor. By comparing movements in South Africa to those in other African and Latin American states, this book identifies profound challenges to democratization. Zuern asserts the fundamental indivisibility of all human rights, showing how protest movements that call attention to socio-economic demands, though often labeled a threat to democracy, offer significant opportunities for modern democracies to evolve into systems of rule that empower all citizens.
Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 195 countries and fifteen territories are used by policymakers, the media, international corporations, civic activists, and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.