Paradigm Crisis: Why Democracy Research is in Trouble

The ongoing discussion about a crisis of democracy, the trend towards autocratization, and the legitimacy problems of formerly consolidated democratic regimes, as can be observed particularly clearly in the United States, initially seemed to be a boon for democracy research. These phenomena made it all the more important for democracy research to uncover the causes of our current malaise, identify practical solutions, and contribute to the stabilization or even improvement of democracies. In the meantime, however, doubts have arisen about whether it is up to this task. My presentation will radicalize these doubts and argue that the crisis of democracy has negative repercussions for democracy research because it leads to a crisis of its paradigm. I will proceed in three steps. First, I will show that Thomas S. Kuhn's concept of paradigm can be applied to democracy research. In doing so, I will also show that Kuhn provides criteria for determining when a paradigm is in crisis. The main output of this section is a modified Kuhnian notion of paradigm that can be combined with Ludwig Fleck's sociology of knowledge and applied to democracy research. In a second step, by looking at contributions to democratic theory and the most important concepts of democracy that are used in research, I will show that the paradigm that is informing democracy research is in crisis. Although it is still suitable for highlighting relevant problems, it fails to find ways to solve these problems. As a result, the research discourse begins to "proliferate" and "anomalies" (Kuhn) accumulate that can no longer be eliminated by modifying the paradigm’s theoretical and conceptual core. Hence, at first glance, it may appear as if there are numerous paradigms in democracy research. In reality, these are a multiplication of paradigm variants, which is a symptom of a crisis. In the concluding third step, I explore three possible future scenarios for dealing with the crisis of democracy research’s paradigm: stabilization, innovation, and post-democratic replacement.