Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:27:47.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Theory of Democratic Elitism Revisited: A Response to Vengroffand Morton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2005

Paul M. Sniderman ,
Joseph F. Fletcher ,
Peter H. Russel ,
Philip E. Tetlock  and
Markus Prior
Paul M. Sniderman
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Joseph F. Fletcher
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Canada
Peter H. Russel
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Canada
Philip E. Tetlock
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Markus Prior
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two questions have dominated the modern study of politics. How do political systems become democratic? And how, supposing they have managed to become democratic, do they manage to remain so? As yet, there is no agreement on the answer to the first question. For a generation, however, there has been consensus on a core part of the answer to the second. In democratic polities, political elites have come to consensus in support of democratic rights, and in times of political stress this elite consensus has served as a bulwark protecting citizens' liberties.

Type
Comment / Commentaire
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 569 - 586
Copyright
© The Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)