Success and Failure in Democratic Theory: Critical Analysis of the Functionality of Democracy

As Jean-Paul Gangnon (2018) demonstrates there are more than two thousand descriptions of democracy. Democratic theory is rich in numerous normative definitions, which are at least partially accompanied by empirical studies of the societal perception of democracy. Some definitions of democracy, in particular, those embedded in western political thought have suffered critique because of their exclusiveness (e.g., Kurki 2010; Makulilo 2017; Williams 2020). Also, as Anna Drake (2022) argues the core normative assumptions entrenched in the concepts of democracy benefit certain groups and deny power to others. This is due to the subjective and normative character of knowledge accumulated as democratic theory, which has practical real-life consequences. Hence, there is a continuous need to examine the intrinsic base assumptions that underpin conceptions of democracy. In other words, examine how scholars embed values and make choices when constructing theory. This is vital not only to prevent harmful consequences but also to promote epistemic humility. In this paper, I explore how definitions/conceptions of democracy (representative, liberal, agonistic, deliberative, open, pragmatic democracy) are constructed, with a focus on conditions for success and failure. I do so by utilizing Niklas Luhmann’s insights into the observation of social reality and system theory. The aim is to identify how conceptions of success and failure present in democratic theory are inclusive or exclusive, and whether they restrict/enable the recognition of other concepts of democracy. Positioning these features as the central point is purposeful, because defining the expected output/outcome of each system/process sets the agenda for the further articulation of these concepts, for example, its’ procedures. The values intrinsic to the characteristic of success and failure are often used to justify a particular concept over others. Similarly, democratic failure has accumulated more attention recently due to research dealing with democratic backsliding. Although this study is limited to a selected portion of democratic theory, the critical analysis of various notions of democracy offered in this paper contributes to the debate on the validity of academic definitions, epistemic justifications, and the multivarious, complex nature of democracy as a social phenomenon. ▪️ Drake, A. (2022). Confronting democracy’s foundational flaws. The Loop ECPR’s Political Science Blog, https://theloop.ecpr.eu/confronting-democracys-foundational-flaws/ . ▪️ Gagnon, JP. (2018). 2,234 descriptions of democracy. An update to democracy’s ontological pluralism. Democratic Theory 5(1): 92–113. ▪️ Kurki, M. (2010). Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy Promotion. International Studies Review 12(3): 362–386. ▪️ Luhmann, N. (1996). Social Systems. Stanford. Stanford University Press. ▪️ Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of Distinction. Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford. Stanford University Press. ▪️ Makulilo, A. B. (2017). Democracy and its Determinants: A Critique. The African Review: A Journal of African Politics, Development and International Affairs 44(2): 50–67. ▪️ Williams, M. (2020). Deparochializing Democratic Theory. In M. Williams (Ed.), Deparochializing Political Theory (pp. 201-229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.