Criticism of democracy

Critiques of democratic political systems

For broader coverage of this topic, see Democracy.

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

Part of the Politics series

Democracy

* History
* Theory
* Indices

Types

* Anticipatory
* Athenian
* Cellular
* Consensus
* Conservative
* Cosmopolitan
* Defensive
* Deliberative
* Direct
* Economic
* Electronic
* Empowered
* Ethnic
* Grassroots
* Guided
* Hybrid regime
* Inclusive
* Industrial
* Jacksonian
* Jeffersonian
* Liberal / Illiberal
* Liquid
* Majoritarian
* Media
* Monitory
* Multiparty
* Non-partisan
* Oral
* Participatory
* Pluralist
* Popular
* Procedural
* Radical
* Representative
* Religious
* Buddhist
* Christian
* Islamic
* Jewish
* Mormon
* Sectarian
* Semi
* Semi-direct
* Social
* Socialist
* Sociocracy
* Sovereign
* Soviet
* Substantive
* Supermajority
* Totalitarian
* Workplace

Methods

* Campaign
* Consultation
* Demonstration
* Election
* By-election
* Direct / Indirect
* Primary
* Recall
* Snap
* Systems
* Legislature / Parliament
* Opinion poll
* Petition
* Popular assembly
* Participatory budgeting
* Referendum
* Deliberative
* Initiative
* Popular
* War
* Sortition
* Citizens' assembly
* Jury
* Voting

Related topics

* Anarchism
* Criticism of democracy
* Democratic backsliding
* Democratic capitalism
* Democratic centralism
* Democratic confederalism
* Democratic peace theory
* Democratic republic
* Democratic socialism
* Democratic transition
* Democratization
* Democracy and economic growth
* Democracy promotion
* Electoral competition
* Kleroterion
* Liberalism
* Libertarianism
* Majoritarianism
* Majority rule
* Motion
* Ochlocracy
* Nomination rules
* Peaceful transition of power
* Political equality
* Polyarchy
* Populism
* Post-democracy
* Proportional representation
* Right to petition
* Right to protest
* Right to candidacy
* Right to vote
* Territorial peace theory
* Tyranny of the majority
* Wars between democracies
* Waves of democracy
* Wisdom of the crowd

Region

* Africa
* Asia
* Europe
* Historical
* Americas
* Middle East and North Africa

Politics portal

* v
* t
* e

Democracy, its functions, and its development have been criticized throughout history. Some critics call upon the constitutional regime to be true to its own highest principles; others reject the values promoted by constitutional democracy.[1]

Plato famously opposed democracy, arguing for a 'government of the best qualified'. James Madison extensively studied the historic attempts at and arguments on democracy in his preparation for the Constitutional Convention, and Winston Churchill remarked that "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."[2]

Critics of democracy have often tried to highlight democracy's inconsistencies, paradoxes, and limits by contrasting it with other forms of government, such as epistocracy or lottocracy. They have characterized most modern democracies as democratic polyarchies[3] and democratic aristocracies.[4] They have identified fascist moments in modern democracies. They have termed the societies produced by modern democracies as neo-feudal[5] and have contrasted democracy with fascism, anarcho-capitalism, theocracy, and absolute monarchy.

## Historical criticism

[edit]

### Classical philosophy

[edit]

Plato is considered one of the most important opponents of democratic rule in Ancient Greece.

As Robert Dahl writes, "Although the practices of modern democracy bear only a weak resemblance to the political institutions of classical Greece... Greek democratic ideas have been more influential... [and] what we know of their ideas comes less from the writings and speeches of democratic advocates, of which only fragments survive, than from their critics".[6]

Aristotle was a mild critic who "disliked the power that he thought the expansion of democracy necessarily gave to the poor."[6] Plato's political philosophy was skeptical of democracy and advocated for "government by the best qualified".[6] Modern liberal democracy incorporated some of these critiques.[7] For example, James Madison "trained rigorously in... ancient learning" as a young man, and the ideas of ancient authors explain a "facet of Madison's recorded attitude on the nature of man".[8] The influence of the ancient critiques of democracy is seen in how Madison spent the months before the Constitutional Convention "studying many centuries of political philosophy and histories of past attempts at republican forms of government".[9]

According to Dahl, Aristotle and Plato would agree with most advocates of modern democracy that an aim of the society is "to produce good citizens" and "Virtue, justice, and happiness are companions... [in] developing citizens who seek the common good".[6]

Thucydides, the famous ancient Greek historian of the Peloponnesian War, witnessed the fall of Athenian democracy and applied scientific history in his critique of the democratic government.[10] At the heart of his critique were how democracy failed "in the search for truth" and how leaders and citizens attempted "to impose their own speech-dependent meanings on reality".[10] Thucydides blamed "public orators" and demagogues for a failure of epistemic knowledge, allowing most Athenians to "believe silly things about their past and the institutions of their opponents".[10]

### Post-classical era criticism

[edit]

From 500 to 1500 AD, philosophers and political leaders around the world often advocated for traditional systems of governing society, which were critical of democracy.[citation needed]

Italian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas advocated for "a mixed government combining elements of democracy, aristocracy and kingship... [which] is reminiscent of Aristotle's preference for mixed government over either democracy or oligarchy."[11] Scholars also consider "the substantial medieval literature in support of the Inquisitions" as opposed to modern ideas of democracy.[12]

Democracy existed in a few "city-states of medieval Italy... [which] were ultimately submerged in imperial or oligarchic rule."[6] The idea of "representation was not invented by democrats but developed instead as a medieval institution of monarchical and aristocratic government," and had its beginnings in "assemblies summoned by the monarch, or sometimes the nobles themselves, to deal with important matters of state."[6] The "state of military technology and organization" in medieval Europe was "highly unfavorable in its effects" on democracy.[6]

Medieval Jewish political philosophy was influenced by Plato, Muslim thought, and Halakhic concepts and was "monarchist, and inherently anti-democratic."[13]

As Amartya Sen wrote about traditional Asian societies, "It is not hard, of course, to find authoritarian writings within the Asian traditions. But neither is it hard to find them in Western classics: One has only to reflect on the writings of Plato or Aquinas to see that devotion to discipline is not a special Asian taste."[12]

Since the post-classical period, Islam has been an important pillar of society for much of the world, and some critics have defended this tradition from "the secular assumptions of the Enlightenment" and an "uncritical universalism," which "erodes historical continuity and the sense of community that sustains traditional societies."[14] In many societies today, people of faith challenge the idea of "secularism as the only 'rational' way to deal with the challenges of life."[14]

### Early modern criticism

[edit]

Thomas Hobbes, one of the first philosophers of the Enlightenment, published Leviathan in 1651 in defense of "absolute sovereignty" and supporting the royalists in the English Civil War.[15] Hobbes was a critic of democracy because "the sovereign in a democracy (i.e. the people) can only exercise its power when it is actually assembled together... Only in a monarchy is the capacity to govern always exercised."[16] Hobbes also thought democracy would lead to instability, conflict, glory seeking, mistrust, and undermining the social contract.[16] Later Enlightenment thinkers, such as Madison, who shared Hobbesian concerns about "the strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses" of human nature, would use some of these critiques to improve modern democracy.[17][8]

### Romantic era criticism

[edit]

Romantic critics of democracy include Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, Matthew Arnold, James Fitzjames Stephen, Henry Maine, and William Lecky. In his study, Benjamin Evans Lippincott wrote that "they opposed democracy fundamentally for the same reason as Plato—that democracy led to disorder." Their unique historical contribution was to critique democracy under capitalism in modern industrial society. They believed that democracy produced anarchy in society, not simply anarchy within the individual as Plato believed.[18]

Lippincott proposed that their three leading doctrines were "the common man's inferiority, the title of the few to rule, and authority". The main sources of these ideas were Puritanism, middle-class ideas of power, and the classical education that they received in their youth. The three doctrines were "most perfectly represented in Plato's Republic," while classical history seemed to provide examples of "the common man's inferiority" as in the cases of Athens and Rome, "which showed the populace turning to disorder". The three doctrines were developed during the Reformation and the Enlightenment by writers like John Calvin, Edmund Burke and David Hume.[19]

## Political and philosophical criticism

[edit]

### Competence of the electorate

[edit]

See also: Literacy test, Democracy: The God That Failed, and Voter suppression

Plato believed the ability of common men to vote was not proper for a democracy. The vote of an expert has equal value to the vote of 'an incompetent'.[20] Jason Brennan believes that the low information voters is a major problem in America and is the main objection to democracies in general because the system does not incentivize being informed.[21] Brennan cites a study where less than 30% of Americans can name two or more of the rights listed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.[21] He believes an informed voter should have extensive knowledge of the candidate's current and previous political beliefs/tendencies. He proposes an epistocracy, which would only give a vote to those with an elite political understanding.[21]

Charles Maurras, a supporter of the Vichy regime and member of the far-right FRS of the Action Française movement believed in biological inequality and natural hierarchies, and claimed that the individual is naturally subordinated to social collectivities such as the family, the society, and the state, which he claims are doomed to fail if based upon the "myth of equality" or "abstract liberty". Maurras criticized democracy as being a "government by numbers" in which quantity matters more over quality and prefers the worst over the best. Maurras denounced the principles of liberalism as described in The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as based upon the false assumption of liberty and the false assumption of equality. He claimed that the parliamentary system subordinates the national interest, or common good, to private interests of a parliament's representatives where only short-sighted interests of individuals prevail.[citation needed] Attempts to replace Democratic meritocracy with Authoritarian meritocracy face challenges since power can override merit.[22]

### Majoritarianism

[edit]

Main articles: Tyranny of the majority, Supermajority, and Consensus democracy

Plato, James Madison and other democratic theorists are worried about conditions where a majority could become tyrannical, also called the tyranny of the majority.[23][24] Professors Richard Ellis of Willamette University and Michael Nelson of Rhodes College argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny". They conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to ensure that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be trampled by majorities".[25] Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for".[26] A constitution[27] would limit the powers of what a simple majority can accomplish.[28] Liberal democracy safeguards against the tyranny of majority through rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, political egalitarianism and equality before the law.[29][30]

### Elitism

[edit]

Further information: Elitism, Elite theory, Populism, and Post-democracy

> "The consciousness of power always produces vanity, an undue belief in personal greatness. The desire to dominate, for good or for evil, is universal. These are elementary facts. In the leader, the consciousness of his personal worth, and of the need which the mass feels for guidance, combine to induce in his mind a recognition of his own superiority (real or supposed), and awake, in addition, that spirit of command which exists in the germ in every man born of woman....He who has acquired power will almost always endeavor to consolidate it and to extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses."

— Robert Michels, Political Parties, 1911[31]

Bernard Manin draws from James Harrington, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to suggest that the dominant form of government, representative as opposed to direct, is effectively aristocratic.[4] He says that modern representative governments exercise political power through aristocratic elections which, in turn, contradicts "rule of the people". As far as Montesquieu is concerned, elections favor the "best" citizens who Manin notes tend to be wealthy and upper-class. As far as Rousseau is concerned, elections favor the incumbent government officials or the citizens with the strongest personalities, which results in hereditary aristocracy. Manin further evinces the aristocratic nature of representative governments by contrasting them with the ancient style of selection by lot. Manin notes that Montesquieu believed that lotteries prevent jealousy and distribute offices equally (among citizens from different ranks), while Rousseau believed that lotteries choose indifferently, preventing self-interest and partiality from polluting the citizen's choice (and thus prevent hereditary aristocracy).

Additionally, Manin is interested in explaining the discrepancy between 18th-century American and French revolutionaries' declaration of the "equality of all citizens" and their enactment of (aristocratic) elections in their respective democratic experiments.[4] Manin suggests that the discrepancy is explained by the revolutionaries' contemporary preoccupation with one form of equality over another. The revolutionaries prioritized gaining the equal right to consent to their choice of government (even a potentially aristocratic democracy), at the expense of seeking the equal right to be the face of that democracy. And it is elections, not lots, that provide citizens with more opportunities to consent. In elections, citizens consent both to the procedure of elections and the product of the elections (even if they produce the election of elites). In lotteries, citizens consent only to the procedure of lots, but not to the product of the lots (even if they produce the election of the average person). That is, if the revolutionaries prioritized consent to be governed over equal opportunity to serve as the government, then their choice of elections over lotteries makes sense.

The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation.[32]

German-Italian political scientist Robert Michels developed the iron law of oligarchy in 1911.[33] Michels argued that oligarchy is inevitable as an "iron law" within any organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization and on the topic of democracy, Michels stated: "It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy" and went on to state "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy".[33] Michels stated that the official goal of democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[33]

A 2014 study led by Princeton professor Martin Gilens of 1,779 U.S. government decisions concluded that "elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."[34]

### Socialist perspective

[edit]

French revolutionary syndicalist Hubert Lagardelle claimed that French revolutionary syndicalism came to being as the result of "the reaction of the proletariat against idiotic democracy," which he claimed was "the popular form of bourgeois dominance". Lagardelle opposed democracy for its universalism, and believed in the necessity of class separation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie, as democracy did not recognize the social differences between them.

## Practical criticism

[edit]

### Lobbying and moneyed influence

[edit]

Further information: Lobbying § Criticism

Political representatives may vote against their constituency and for special interest groups with increasing lobbying money.[35] Some aspects of lobbying have been criticized by some for contributing to a democratic deficit.[36]

Democracies aren't immune to corruption. [37] Whilst countries that have high levels of democracy tend to have low levels of different forms of corruption, it is also clear that countries with moderate levels of democracy have high corruption, as well as countries with no democracy having very little corruption.[38] Varying types of democratic policies reduce corruption, but only high levels of, and multiple kinds of democratic institutions, such as open and free elections combined with judicial and legislative constraints, will effectively reduce corruption.

### Vulnerability to opponents

[edit]

See also: Suppression of dissent, Crowd manipulation, Media manipulation, and Post-truth politics

According to Boaventura de Sousa Santos, "democracy is being so emptied of content that it can be instrumentally defended by those who use it in order to destroy it," saying that individuals calling for increased democratization and protection from fascism are labeled as leftists.[39]

Various reasons can be found for eliminating or suppressing political opponents. Methods such as false flags, counterterrorism-laws,[40] planting or creating compromising material and perpetuation of public fear may be used to suppress dissent. After a failed coup d'état over 110,000 people have been purged and nearly 40,000 have been imprisoned in Turkey, which is or was considered to be a democratic nation, during the 2016 Turkish purges.[41][42] Fake parties, phantom political rivals, and "scarecrow" opponents may be used to undermine the opposition.[43]

The electoral process in democracies can be corrupted, through the giving and receiving of bribes, the threat or use of violence, treatment, and impersonation. [44]

Social bots and other forms of online propaganda as well as search engine result algorithms may be used to alter the perception and opinion of voters.[45][46] In 2016 Andrés Sepúlveda disclosed that he manipulated public opinion to rig elections in Latin America. According to him, with a budget of $600,000, he led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices to help Enrique Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, win the election.[47][48] Televised debates[49] and, according to George Bishop, inaccurate opinion polls[50] can in some cases shift election outcomes.

Dan Slater and Lucan Ahmad Way argue that misinformation − such as fake news − has become common to elections around the world.[51] They criticized the FBI for announcing that the agency would examine potentially incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server just 11 days before the US election.[51]

### Inefficiency and instability

[edit]

Majoritarian democracy has been criticized [by whom?] for not offering enough political stability.[citation needed] As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally.[citation needed] Reason Wafawarova argued in 2008 that rigid approaches to democracy may undermine that ability for a developing country to achieve long-term stability and democracy.[52][needs update]

Democracy tends to improve conflict resolution.[53] However, spatially concentrated costs and diffuse benefits together with regulatory transaction costs can result in ineffective conflict resolution such as NIMBY.[54]

The Coase theorem states that non-zero transaction costs will generally lead to inefficient conflict resolution. Daron Acemoglu argues that the Coase theorem extends to politics, where the "rules of the game" in politics need to be enforced to achieve low transaction costs. Groups with political power can prefer inefficient policies and inefficient institutions and oppose further democratization.[55] Anthony Downs argued that the political markets works much the same way as the economic market and that there could potentially be an equilibrium in the system because of the democratic process.[56] However, he argued that imperfect knowledge in politicians and voters prevented the full realization of that equilibrium.[56]

Income inequality and limited socioeconomic mobility can lead to social unrest and revolutions.[57] The extension of the democratic franchise can be seen as a commitment by the political elite in favor of economic redistribution and political redistribution to prevent social unrest, explaining the Kuznets curve.[58] In what situations democracy reduces economic inequality is debated.[59]

Short-term incentives on elected politicians can lead to short-term benefits,[60] while ignoring long-term risks such as debt crisis, pensions crisis, climate risk or financial crisis.[61] Some election systems have been shown to reward financial prudence[62] and debt brakes.[63] Different voting systems lead to different levels of short-termism in politics.[64]

James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner argue that the nontransparent nature of tax system causes a fiscal illusion which results in greater government spending than democratically expected.[65]

### Low voter turnout

[edit]

Voter turnout being lower than desired in some democracies has been attributed to several causes, with examples including reduced trust in democratic processes, lack of compulsory voting, political efficacy, include wasted votes,[66] gridlock and high barriers to entry for new political movements.[67]

## Cultural and theocratic criticism

[edit]

### Theocratic perspective

[edit]

Main articles: Theocracy and Salafism

Theocracies view deities as supreme ruling authorities, not the people.[68] Theodemocracy combines authority by both deity and the people.[69]

The practice of orthodox Islam in the form of Salafism can clash with a democratic system. The core precept of Islam, that of "tawheed" (the "oneness of God"), can be interpreted by fundamentalist Salafis to mean, among other things, that democracy as a political system is incompatible with the purported notion that laws not handed down by God should not be recognized.[70]

Carl Schmitt contended that political representation in a liberal democracy was formulaic, and that the mystical nature and personalist ideal of the Catholic sovereign was essential.[71]: 516

### Asian perspectives

[edit]

Political leaders in Singapore and China, such as Lee Kuan Yew, have said Confucianism provides a more "coherent ideological basis for a well-ordered Asian society than Western notions of individual liberty".[72] Chinese Confucian Jiang Qing, who advocates for the political Confucianism of the Gyongyang School, contends that parliamentary democracy is constrained by legal formalism, vulgar populism, and moral relativism.[73]: 258

In his criticism of Western liberal democracy, academic Zhang Weiwei contends that liberal democracy is insufficiently meritocratic and fails to choose trustworthy leaders.[74]: 211

Chinese policymakers argue that policy under democratic systems is largely restricted to ad hoc interventions which leaves social development vulnerable to market forces.[75]: 144  According to this view, policy-making in democratic systems is limited to ad hoc policy interventions.[75]: 144–145  Chinese planners argue that such interventions are incapable of coping with fundamental challenges such as environmental degradation, dysfunction in capital markets, and demographic change.[75]: 145

The Chinese Communist Party political concept of whole-process people's democracy criticizes liberal democracy for excessively relying on procedural formalities or rule of law without, in the party's view, genuinely reflecting the interests of the people.[76]: 60–64  According to Wang Zhongyuan of Fudan University, this critique arises as part of a post-1990s trend in which various countries have sought to redefine "democracy" in ways that differ from Western multi-party democratic systems.[76]: 61  Under the framing of whole-process people's democracy, the most important criteria for democracy is whether it can "solve the people's real problems," while a system in which "the people are awakened only for voting" is deemed not truly democratic.[76]: 60–64  The concept is thus both a way of criticizing liberal democracy and deflecting criticism of the Chinese system.[76]: 64

## Responses to criticism

[edit]

### Defenses of democracy

[edit]

David Van Reybrouck, the author of Against Elections: The Case for Democracy, argues that allocating power through sortition, such as in citizens' assemblies, fixes many of the shortcomings of representative democracy. "Democracy is not government by the best in our society, because such a thing is called an aristocracy, elected or not...Democracy, by contrast, flourishes precisely by allowing a diversity of voices to be heard. It's all about having an equal say, an equal right to determine what political action is taken."[77]

To safeguard democracy from states of emergencies, sunset provisions with an extension review process are sometimes proposed.[78] Sunset provisions are thought to increase long-term electoral accountability of laws.[79]

Some concerned by the sway of the public opinion argue for limiting the ability of money to play a role in democracy.[80][81]

### Empirical evidence

[edit]

Contemporary empirical evidence on the success of democracy is equivocal. On one hand, democracy is sometimes credited for bringing peace, individual freedoms and economic prosperity.[82] On the other hand, certain studies, such as The Economist Democracy Index indicate that democracies are in decline globally.[83]

## See also

[edit]

* Collective problem solving
* Democracy in China
* Group decision-making
* General will § Criticisms
* Liberal democracy § Objections and criticism
* Illiberal democracy
* Neo-feudalism
* Political warfare
* The Myth of the Rational Voter
* The Rise of the Meritocracy

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Ober, Josiah (2005). "Democratic Athens as an Experimental System: History and the Project of Political Theory". Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 110512. Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1426841. S2CID 146975709. SSRN 1426841.
2. ^ "Parliament Bill". api.parliament.uk. November 11, 1947. Retrieved April 22, 2018.
3. ^ Dahl, Robert A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 1–16\. ISBN 978-0300015652.
4. ^ a b c Manin, Bernard (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 2, 67–93, 132–160\. ISBN 978-0521458917.
5. ^ Thom Hartmann, "Time to Remove the Bananas...and Return Our Republic to Democracy," CommonDreams.org, 6 November 2002
6. ^ a b c d e f g "Democracy and Its Critics | Yale University Press". yalebooks.yale.edu. Retrieved February 19, 2022.
7. ^ Arnhart, Larry (June 1, 2015). "Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique, by Grant N. Havers". American Political Thought. 4 (3): 513–516\. doi:10.1086/682033. ISSN 2161-1580.
8. ^ a b Ketcham, Ralph L. (1958). "James Madison and the Nature of Man". Journal of the History of Ideas. 19 (1): 62–76\. doi:10.2307/2707952. ISSN 0022-5037. JSTOR 2707952.
9. ^ "The Life of James Madison". www.montpelier.org. Retrieved February 21, 2022.
10. ^ a b c Ober, Josiah (January 1, 1993). "Thucydides' Criticism of Democratic Knowledge". Nomodeiktes.
11. ^ Kilcullen, John; Robinson, Jonathan (2019), "Medieval Political Philosophy", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved February 19, 2022
12. ^ a b Sen, Amartya Kumar (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy. 10 (3): 3–17\. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 54556373.
13. ^ Melamed, Avraham (1993). "The Attitude Towards Democracy in Medieval Jewish Philosophy". Jewish Political Studies Review. 5 (1/2): 33–56\. ISSN 0792-335X. JSTOR 25834254.
14. ^ a b Majid, Anouar (1995). "Can the Postcolonial Critic Speak? Orientalism and the Rushdie Affair". Cultural Critique (32): 5–42\. doi:10.2307/1354529. ISSN 0882-4371. JSTOR 1354529.
15. ^ Duncan, Stewart (2021), "Thomas Hobbes", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved February 20, 2022
16. ^ a b Apperley, Alan (1999). "Hobbes on Democracy". Politics. 19 (3): 165–171\. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.00101. ISSN 1467-9256. S2CID 143030006.
17. ^ Coleman, Frank (June 12, 2017). Hobbes and America. University of Toronto Press. doi:10.3138/9781442652989. ISBN 978-1-4426-5298-9.
18. ^ Lippincott, Benjamin Evans (1938). Victorian Critics of Democracy. The University of Minnesota Press. p. 5.
19. ^ Lippincott, Benjamin Evans (1938). Victorian Critics of Democracy. The University of Minnesota Press. p. 257.
20. ^ "Plato | Criticism of democracy". The Gallerist. January 23, 2021.
21. ^ a b c Brennan 2016.
22. ^ He, Baogang; Warren, Mark E. (2020). "Can meritocracy replace democracy? A conceptual framework". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 46 (9): 1093–1112\. doi:10.1177/0191453720948388.
23. ^ Michels, Robert. Political Parties – A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, Jarrold & Sons. London, 1916.
24. ^ "The Federalist Papers: No. 10". Avalon Project. December 29, 1998. Retrieved January 7, 2022.
25. ^ Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating the presidency (2009) p. 211
26. ^ David Tucker, Enlightened republicanism: a study of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (2008) p. 109
27. ^ Lowell, A. Lawrence. "Democracy and the Constitution," Essays on Government, Houghton Mifflin & Co. New York, 1890.
28. ^ James Madison, Federalist No. 10
29. ^ "liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice." Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Third edition 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
30. ^ Young, Shaun (2002). Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. p. 36\. ISBN 978-0-7618-2240-0.
31. ^ Michels, Robert (1962). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: The Free Press. p. 206.
32. ^ Femia 2001.
33. ^ a b c James L. Hyland. Democratic theory: the philosophical foundations. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Manchester University Press ND, 1995. Pp. 247.
34. ^ "Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens," M. Gilens and B. I. Page (2014), Perspectives on politics 12, 564–581, [1]
35. ^ Balles, Patrick; Matter, Ulrich; Stutzer, Alois (May 31, 2024). "Special Interest Groups Versus Voters and the Political Economics of Attention". The Economic Journal. 134 (662): 2290–2320\. doi:10.1093/ej/ueae020. hdl:10419/193239. ISSN 0013-0133.
36. ^ Karr, Karolina (2007). Democracy and lobbying in the European Union. Campus Verlag. p. 10\. ISBN 9783593384122.
37. ^ "How Corruption Weakens Democracy". Transparency International. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
38. ^ McMann, Kelly M.; Seim, Brigitte; Teorell, Jan; Lindberg, Staffan (July 2019). "Why Low Levels of Democracy Promote Corruption and High Levels Diminish It". Sage. 73 (4): 1. doi:10.1177/1065912919862054. S2CID 203150460.
39. ^ De Sousa Santos, Boaventura (March 21, 2023). "Silence of the Intellectuals". Journal of World-Systems Research. 29 (1): 219–226\. doi:10.5195/JWSR.2023.1177. hdl:10316/113738.
40. ^ Chronicles. Rockford Institute. 2003. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
41. ^ "Turkey's crackdown on dissent has gone too far". Financial Times. October 4, 2016. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
42. ^ Norton, Ben (November 2, 2016). "Turkey's ruthless, slow-motion coup: 110,000 purged as Western ally cracks down on dissent, journalism". Salon. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
43. ^ Wilson, Andrew (2005). Virtual politics : faking democracy in the post-Soviet world (1st ed.). New Haven [u.a.]: Yale Univ. Pr. ISBN 9780300095456.
44. ^ Ward, Norman (February 1949). "Electoral Corruption and Controverted Elections". The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. 15 (1): 74–86\. doi:10.2307/137956. JSTOR 137956.
45. ^ Copley, Caroline (November 24, 2016). "Merkel fears social bots may manipulate German election". Reuters. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
46. ^ Gaycken, Sandro (October 18, 2016). "The new power of manipulation". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
47. ^ Robertson, Jordan; Riley, Michael; Willis, Andrew (March 31, 2016). "How to Hack an Election". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
48. ^ Staufenberg, Jess (April 2, 2016). "Man claims he rigged elections in most Latin American countries over 8 years". The Independent. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
49. ^ Davis, Colin J.; Bowers, Jeffrey S.; Memon, Amina (March 30, 2011). "Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy". PLOS ONE. 6 (3): e18154. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...618154D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018154. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3068183. PMID 21479191.
50. ^ Bishop, George (November 30, 2015). "Polls Can Create an Illusion of Public Opinion". The Opinion Pages - The New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
51. ^ a b Slater, Dan; Way, Lucan Ahmad (January 12, 2017). "Was the 2016 U.S. election democratic? Here are 7 serious shortfalls". Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
52. ^ Wafawarova, Reason (October 16, 2008). "Opinion: Head to head: African democracy". BBC News. Retrieved April 1, 2010.
53. ^ Dixon, William J. (1993). "Democracy and the Management of International Conflict". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 37: 42–68\. doi:10.1177/0022002793037001002.
54. ^ Foster, David; Warren, Joseph (2022). "The NIMBY problem". Journal of Theoretical Politics. 34: 145–172\. doi:10.1177/09516298211044852.
55. ^ Acemoglu, Daron (2003). "Why Not A Political Coase Theorem? Social Conflict, Commitment, And Politics". Journal of Comparative Economics. 31 (4): 620–652\. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.199.8045. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2003.09.003.
56. ^ a b Downs, Anthony (April 1957). "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy". Journal of Political Economy. 65 (2): 135–150\. doi:10.1086/257897. JSTOR 1827369. S2CID 154363730.
57. ^ Parvin, Manoucher (1973). "Economic Determinants of Political Unrest: An Econometric Approach". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 17 (2): 271–296\. doi:10.1177/002200277301700205. ISSN 0022-0027.
58. ^ Acemoglu, D.; Robinson, J. A. (2000). "Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 115 (4): 1167–1199\. doi:10.1162/003355300555042. hdl:1721.1/64369. ISSN 0033-5533.
59. ^ Timmons, Jeffrey F. (2010). "Does Democracy Reduce Economic Inequality?". British Journal of Political Science. 40 (4): 741–757\. doi:10.1017/S0007123410000165. ISSN 0007-1234.
60. ^ Ogami, Masakazu (May 2, 2024). "The Conditionality of Political Short-Termism: A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies". Politics and Governance. 12. doi:10.17645/pag.7764. ISSN 2183-2463.
61. ^ Lipscy, Phillip Y. (2018). "Democracy and Financial Crisis". International Organization. 72 (4): 937–968\. doi:10.1017/S0020818318000279. ISSN 0020-8183.
62. ^ Buchs, Aurélia; Soguel, Nils (April 1, 2022). "Fiscal performance and the re-election of finance ministers–evidence from the Swiss cantons". Public Choice. 191 (1): 31–49\. doi:10.1007/s11127-021-00949-z. ISSN 1573-7101. S2CID 246371550.
63. ^ Mosler, Martin; Schaltegger, Christoph (June 27, 2024). "The Swiss Debt Brake Is Democratic, Strict, Transparent, and Binding. A Model to Follow?". The Economists' Voice. 21 (1): 213–218\. doi:10.1515/ev-2024-0021. ISSN 1553-3832.
64. ^ Ferrín, Mónica; Hernández, Enrique (May 2021). "Preferences for consensus and majoritarian democracy: long- and short-term influences". European Political Science Review. 13 (2): 209–225\. doi:10.1017/S1755773921000047. hdl:2183/27899. ISSN 1755-7739.
65. ^ Buchanan, James M.; Wagner, Richard E. (1977). Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-86597-227-3.
66. ^ Park, Chang Sup (2019). "The mediating role of political talk and political efficacy in the effects of news use on expressive and collective participation". Communication and the Public. 4: 35–52\. doi:10.1177/2057047319829580. S2CID 150474892.
67. ^ Tullock, Gordon (1965). "Entry Barriers in Politics". The American Economic Review. 55 (1/2): 458–466\. JSTOR 1816288.
68. ^ "Theocracy, n.". Oxford English Dictionary. 2015. Archived from the original on July 21, 2013. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
69. ^ Times and Seasons, 5:510.
70. ^ Salafism in the Netherlands: Diversity and dynamics (PDF). General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV). 2015. p. 12\. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 5, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
71. ^ Tu, Hang (February 24, 2022). "Long Live Chairman Mao! Death, Resurrection, and the (Un)Making of a Revolutionary Relic". The Journal of Asian Studies. 81 (3): 507–522\. doi:10.1017/s0021911821002321. ISSN 0021-9118.
72. ^ Fukuyama, Francis (1995). "Confucianism and Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 6 (2): 20–33\. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0029. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 11344823.
73. ^ Tu, Hang (2025). Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past. Harvard University Asia Center. ISBN 9780674297579.
74. ^ Bachulska, Alicja; Leonard, Mark; Oertel, Janka (July 2, 2024). The Idea of China: Chinese Thinkers on Power, Progress, and People (EPUB). Berlin, Germany: European Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 978-1-916682-42-9. Archived from the original on July 17, 2024. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
75. ^ a b c Heilmann, Sebastian (2018). Red Swan: How Unorthodox Policy-Making Facilitated China's Rise. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2n7q6b. ISBN 978-962-996-827-4. JSTOR j.ctv2n7q6b. S2CID 158420253.
76. ^ a b c d Wang, Zhongyuan (2022). "Democracy with Chinese Adjectives: Whole-Process Democracy and China's Political Development". In Pieke, Frank N; Hofman, Bert (eds.). CPC Futures The New Era of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. doi:10.56159/eai.52060. ISBN 978-981-18-5206-0. OCLC 1354535847.
77. ^ Reybrouck 2016, p. 133.
78. ^ Molloy, Sean (2021). "Approach with Caution: Sunset Clauses as Safeguards of Democracy?". 23 Eur. J.L. Reform 147. 23: 147. doi:10.5553/EJLR/138723702021023002001.
79. ^ Davis, Lewis Anthony (1981). "Review Procedures And Public Accountability In Sunset Legislation: An Analysis And Proposal For Reform". Administrative Law Review. 33 (4). American Bar Association: 393–413\. ISSN 0001-8368. JSTOR 40709182.
80. ^ Jacobs, Lawrence R. (December 1, 2001). "Commentary: Manipulators and Manipulation: Public Opinion in a Representative Democracy". Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 26 (6): 1361–1374\. doi:10.1215/03616878-26-6-1361. ISSN 1527-1927. PMID 11831584. S2CID 5716232. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
81. ^ Gorton, William A. (January 2, 2016). "Manipulating Citizens: How Political Campaigns' Use of Behavioral Social Science Harms Democracy". New Political Science. 38: 61–80\. doi:10.1080/07393148.2015.1125119. S2CID 147145163.
82. ^ Pelke, Lars (2023). "Reanalysing the link between democracy and economic development". International Area Studies Review. 26 (4): 361–383\. doi:10.1177/22338659231194945.
83. ^ "EIU's 2024 Democracy Index: trend of global democratic decline and strengthening authoritarianism continues through 2024". February 27, 2025. Retrieved March 10, 2025.

### Cited works

[edit]

* Brennan, Jason (2016). Against Democracy: New Preface. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77mcz. ISBN 978-1-4008-8839-9. OCLC 942707357.
* Reybrouck, David Van (2016). Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. Translated by Waters, Liz. London: The Bodley Head. p. 133\. ISBN 978-1-84792-422-3.
* Femia, Joseph V. (2001). Against the masses : varieties of anti-democratic thought since the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-828063-7. OCLC 46641885.

## Further reading

[edit]

This "further reading" section may need cleanup. Please read the editing guide and help improve the section. (March 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

* Benoist, Alain de (2011). The Problem of Democracy. London: Arktos. ISBN 978-1-907166-16-7. OCLC 713181908.[importance?]
* Lukacs, John (March 8, 2005). Democracy and Populism. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10773-9.
* Mann, Michael (2004). The Dark Side of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53854-1.
* Graham, Gordon (2002). The Case Against the Democratic State. Thorverton: Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-0-907845-38-6. OCLC 50581619.[importance?]
* Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001). Democracy - the God That Failed. New Brunswick, [NJ]: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0868-4.
* Schmitt, Carl (June 22, 1988). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-69126-0.
* Briggs, Asa (April 15, 1975). "Robert Lowe and the Fear of Democracy in late 19th century British politics". Victorian People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-07488-7.
* Newcastle, Lord Percy of. The Heresy of Democracy, Henry Regnery Co, 1955.[importance?]
* Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von. Liberty or Equality, The Caxton Printers, 1952.[importance?]
* Mencken, H. L. (1926). Notes on democracy. New York: Knopf. OCLC 182664.
* Mackinder, Sir Halford J. Democratic Ideals and Reality, Henry Holt & Company. New York, 1919.
* Godkin, Edwin L. Problems of Modern Democracy, Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, 1896.[importance?]
* Maine, Sir Henry Sumner. Popular Government, John Murray. London, 1886.

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template