Summary Politics of Reform
College 1 introduction
Politics (≠ Policy or Polity) of Reform. Democratic systems as starting point. So: Democratic reforms.
Or: institutional changes to the democratic system:
- Menu of options
- Looking for patterns
Advanced democracies and the new politics:
Five criteria :
1. Inclusion
2. Political equality
3. Enlightened understanding
4. Control of the agenda
5. Effective participation
Dahl:
What is democracy for Dahl? It’s total participation and total equality. He is really radical. “that all
members are equality entitled to participate in the association’s decisions about its policies…”
1. Participation must be effective
2. Voting must be equal
3. All must have full understanding of policies
4. Control of agenda
5. All adults must be included
,All members must be politically equal.
A democracy in this form can’t exist in real life. This is an ideal form that cannot be met.
Why do we need these institutions (six criteria)? Because direct democracy is not possible. These
competences ensure that citizens are good citizens. It ensures political pluralism within society and it
ensures controls on the political system.
Dahl describes the polyarchy. We can never get a democracy, but the second best we can get is a
polyarchy. The criteria mentioned above can never be fully fulfilled in real life. This leads to the six
criteria for polyarchies:
1. Elected officials
2. Free and fair elections
3. Freedom of expressions
4. Free media
5. Associations autonomy
6. Inclusive citizenship
These are intrinsic democratic criteria.
Why democracy?
He really defends democracy as also the best form of government. It combats tyranny. Democracy
guarantees essential rights. There is an intrinsic good you get form democracy. This might not be
policy effectiveness. But self-determination, peace, autonomy and it protects personal interests. It
guarantees human development, peace and prosperity.
Democracy is messy. In the long-term we get a better society. China may be better on the short-term.
Democracy is about patience and time and it becomes really complex this way. Dahl says it is the best
essentially, but he describes more what democracy is about.
Where people are satisfied with democracy and why:
Foa, R. & Klassen, A. (2020) Where people are satisfied with democracy and why.
Foa and Klassen (2020) state that the dissatisfaction with democracy has increased globally over the
past 25 years, but a small number of countries have reached record high levels of satisfaction with
their democracies. They give four factors that can explain the (dis)satisfaction with democracy;
polarization, paralysis, perfidy and powerlessness. First of all, rising polarization is associated with
more dissatisfaction, especially in majoritarian electoral systems. Secondly, paralysis of government
(government shutdowns) are also associated with more democratic dissatisfaction. Parliament- or
,government logjammed or even shut down tend to provide for more dissatisfaction. Thirdly, perfidy,
or corruption and scandal, is one of the strongest predictors of dissatisfaction with democracy. And
finally citizens must get the feeling that they have agency over the political process.
Dalton, R. J., Scarrow, S. E., & Cain, B. E. (2004). Advanced democracies and the new politics.
Journal of democracy, 15(1), 124-138.
Dalton, Scarrow and Cain (2004) state that over the past quarter-century in advanced industrial
democracies, citizens, public interest groups, and political elites have shown decreasing confidence in
the institutions and processes of representative government. Contemporary democracies are facing
popular pressures to grant more access, increase the transparency of governance, and make
government more accountable. Experts habe been calling for democracies to reform and adapt.
The history of modern democracies is punctuated by repeated waves of debate about the
nature of the democratic process, some of which have produced major institutional reforms. The
institutional impact of the reform wave of the late twentieth century can be understood in terms of
three different modes of democratic politics. One aims at improving the process of representative
democracy in which citizens elect elites. Second, there are calls for new types of direct democracy
that bypass the processes of representative democracy. A third mode seeks to expand the means of
political participation through a new style of advocacy democracy, in which citizens participate in
policy deliberation and formation—either directly or through surrogates, such as public interest
groups—although the final decisions are still made by elites.
Dahl tends to equate democracy with the institutions and processes of representative
democracy, paying much less attention to other forms of citizen participation that may actually
represent more important means of citizen influence over political elites. Dahl suggests five criteria
for a genuinely democratic system;
1. Inclusion
2. Political equality
3. Enlightened understanding
4. Control of the agenda
5. Effective participation
Dalton, Scarrow and Cain (2004) broaden the framework to include not only representative
democracy but direct democracy and advocacy democracy also.
Direct democracy seems to fulfill Dahl’s democratic criteria of agenda control and effective
participation. The expansion of direct democracy has the potential to complement traditional forms
of representative democracy. But direct democracy also raises new questions about equality of
actual influence, if not formal access, and the ability of the public to make fair and reasoned
judgments about issues.
Advocacy democracy increases the potential for citizen access in important ways. It can give
citizens and public interest groups new influence over the agenda-setting process, and it can give
them unmediated involvement in the policy-formation process. These are significant extensions of
democratic participation. At the same time, advocacy democracy may exacerbate (verergeren)
political inequality on account of inequalities in usage.
No form of democratic action is ideal, each having its advantages and limitations. Democratic
reforms create opportunities, but they also create challenges. Our goal should be to ensure that
progress on some democratic criteria is not unduly sacrificed for progress on others.
College 2 Why reform? – is democratic reform a good thing?
, Article: Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance
Does outcome favorability have an influence on the willingness to accept the decision?
Explaining decision acceptance:
College 1 introduction
Politics (≠ Policy or Polity) of Reform. Democratic systems as starting point. So: Democratic reforms.
Or: institutional changes to the democratic system:
- Menu of options
- Looking for patterns
Advanced democracies and the new politics:
Five criteria :
1. Inclusion
2. Political equality
3. Enlightened understanding
4. Control of the agenda
5. Effective participation
Dahl:
What is democracy for Dahl? It’s total participation and total equality. He is really radical. “that all
members are equality entitled to participate in the association’s decisions about its policies…”
1. Participation must be effective
2. Voting must be equal
3. All must have full understanding of policies
4. Control of agenda
5. All adults must be included
,All members must be politically equal.
A democracy in this form can’t exist in real life. This is an ideal form that cannot be met.
Why do we need these institutions (six criteria)? Because direct democracy is not possible. These
competences ensure that citizens are good citizens. It ensures political pluralism within society and it
ensures controls on the political system.
Dahl describes the polyarchy. We can never get a democracy, but the second best we can get is a
polyarchy. The criteria mentioned above can never be fully fulfilled in real life. This leads to the six
criteria for polyarchies:
1. Elected officials
2. Free and fair elections
3. Freedom of expressions
4. Free media
5. Associations autonomy
6. Inclusive citizenship
These are intrinsic democratic criteria.
Why democracy?
He really defends democracy as also the best form of government. It combats tyranny. Democracy
guarantees essential rights. There is an intrinsic good you get form democracy. This might not be
policy effectiveness. But self-determination, peace, autonomy and it protects personal interests. It
guarantees human development, peace and prosperity.
Democracy is messy. In the long-term we get a better society. China may be better on the short-term.
Democracy is about patience and time and it becomes really complex this way. Dahl says it is the best
essentially, but he describes more what democracy is about.
Where people are satisfied with democracy and why:
Foa, R. & Klassen, A. (2020) Where people are satisfied with democracy and why.
Foa and Klassen (2020) state that the dissatisfaction with democracy has increased globally over the
past 25 years, but a small number of countries have reached record high levels of satisfaction with
their democracies. They give four factors that can explain the (dis)satisfaction with democracy;
polarization, paralysis, perfidy and powerlessness. First of all, rising polarization is associated with
more dissatisfaction, especially in majoritarian electoral systems. Secondly, paralysis of government
(government shutdowns) are also associated with more democratic dissatisfaction. Parliament- or
,government logjammed or even shut down tend to provide for more dissatisfaction. Thirdly, perfidy,
or corruption and scandal, is one of the strongest predictors of dissatisfaction with democracy. And
finally citizens must get the feeling that they have agency over the political process.
Dalton, R. J., Scarrow, S. E., & Cain, B. E. (2004). Advanced democracies and the new politics.
Journal of democracy, 15(1), 124-138.
Dalton, Scarrow and Cain (2004) state that over the past quarter-century in advanced industrial
democracies, citizens, public interest groups, and political elites have shown decreasing confidence in
the institutions and processes of representative government. Contemporary democracies are facing
popular pressures to grant more access, increase the transparency of governance, and make
government more accountable. Experts habe been calling for democracies to reform and adapt.
The history of modern democracies is punctuated by repeated waves of debate about the
nature of the democratic process, some of which have produced major institutional reforms. The
institutional impact of the reform wave of the late twentieth century can be understood in terms of
three different modes of democratic politics. One aims at improving the process of representative
democracy in which citizens elect elites. Second, there are calls for new types of direct democracy
that bypass the processes of representative democracy. A third mode seeks to expand the means of
political participation through a new style of advocacy democracy, in which citizens participate in
policy deliberation and formation—either directly or through surrogates, such as public interest
groups—although the final decisions are still made by elites.
Dahl tends to equate democracy with the institutions and processes of representative
democracy, paying much less attention to other forms of citizen participation that may actually
represent more important means of citizen influence over political elites. Dahl suggests five criteria
for a genuinely democratic system;
1. Inclusion
2. Political equality
3. Enlightened understanding
4. Control of the agenda
5. Effective participation
Dalton, Scarrow and Cain (2004) broaden the framework to include not only representative
democracy but direct democracy and advocacy democracy also.
Direct democracy seems to fulfill Dahl’s democratic criteria of agenda control and effective
participation. The expansion of direct democracy has the potential to complement traditional forms
of representative democracy. But direct democracy also raises new questions about equality of
actual influence, if not formal access, and the ability of the public to make fair and reasoned
judgments about issues.
Advocacy democracy increases the potential for citizen access in important ways. It can give
citizens and public interest groups new influence over the agenda-setting process, and it can give
them unmediated involvement in the policy-formation process. These are significant extensions of
democratic participation. At the same time, advocacy democracy may exacerbate (verergeren)
political inequality on account of inequalities in usage.
No form of democratic action is ideal, each having its advantages and limitations. Democratic
reforms create opportunities, but they also create challenges. Our goal should be to ensure that
progress on some democratic criteria is not unduly sacrificed for progress on others.
College 2 Why reform? – is democratic reform a good thing?
, Article: Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance
Does outcome favorability have an influence on the willingness to accept the decision?
Explaining decision acceptance:
