Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T16:49:43.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Moving Target: Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2011

John Markoff*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh [jm2@pitt.edu].
Get access

Abstract

Achieving consensus on a definition of “democracy” has proven elusive. Institutions that have been taken to be essential to democracy have changed radically since the word “democrat” began to be widely used toward the end of the eighteenth century. Democratic ideas and democratic practice engender conflict that transforms institutions rather than just reproduces them. Its transformative character rests on a half-dozen key attributes of democracy: it is an actor’s concept, as well as an analyst’s; it can arouse strong feelings; it combines not always compatible ideas; it empowers dissent; it involves a dynamic mixture of inclusion and exclusion; and the democratic histories of national states have been intertwined with global domination. Two processes combine to generate much social dynamism. First, democracy’s stirring inclusionary claims have been contradicted by a complex structure of exclusions, including distinctions in rights of full participation among citizens, distinctions in rights between citizens and non-citizens, and distinctions in resources among legally equal citizens. And second, democratic practice has been fertile soil for the development of social movements. Taken together, democracy is an invitation for movements to try to shift the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, and in so doing to expand or constrict democracy itself.

Résumé

Définir consensuellement la démocratie s’est révélé objectif fuyant. Les institutions jugées essentielles pour la démocratie ont radicalement changé depuis que, vers la fin du XVIIIe siècle, l’usage du terme démocrate s’est répandu. De la confrontation entre les idées démocratiques et la pratique naît un conflit qui transforme les institutions. Le potentiel de transformation repose sur une demi-douzaine d’attributs clés. Concept commun à l’acteur et à l’analyste, il peut susciter des engagements forts ; il combine des idées non nécessairement compatibles et peut générer de l’opposition ; il comporte un mélange dynamique d’inclusion et d’exclusion. Les États-Nations ont fait coexister démocratie et domination. Proclamations d’ouverture et exclusions (selon le niveau de ressources, entre hommes et femmes, citoyens et non-citoyens) forment un couple dynamique qui fait de la démocratie un terrain fertile pour le développement des mouvements sociaux.

Zusammenfassung

Die Demokratie konsensuell zu definieren erweist sich als unbeständig. Seit Entstehen des Begriffs »Demokrat« im 18. Jahrhunderts haben sich die für die Demokratie als grundlegend erachteten Institutionen entscheidend verändert.

Der Zusammenstoß von demokratischen Ideen und Praxis führt zu einem die Institutionen verändernden Konflikt. Das Veränderungspotential basiert auf einem halben Dutzend von Schlüsselmerkmalen: es handelt sich sowohl um das Konzept eines Handelnden als auch eines Analytikers; es kann zu starken Gefühlen führen; es setzt sich aus nicht immer harmonierenden Ideen zusammen; es ruft Widerstand hervor; es besteht aus einer dynamischen Mischung von Ein- und Ausgrenzung und die demokratische Entwicklung der Nationalstaaten ist ohne Vorherrschaft undenkbar. Zwei Prozesse führen zu einer dynamischen Bewegung. Erstens sind die Öffnungsverkündigungen durch eine Serie von Ausgrenzungen, je nach Einkommensniveau, zwischen Bürgern und Nichtbürgern, zwischen Männern und Frauen, etc. widerlegt worden. Zweitens hat sich die demokratische Praxis als für soziale Bewegungen fruchtbarer Boden erwiesen. Derart können die Ein- und Ausgrenzungslinien verschoben und die Demokratie ausgebaut oder eingeschränkt werden.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2011

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.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Michael and Lennon, Mary J., 1992. “Canadians, Too, Fault Their Political Institutions and Leaders”, Public Perspective 3, September-October, pp. 19-21.Google Scholar
Bandy, Joe and Smith, Jackie, 2004. Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Behrens, Angela, Uggen, Christopher and Manza, Jeff. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination’: Racial Threat and Felon Disfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002”, American Journal of Sociology, 109 (3), pp. 559-605.Google Scholar
Boswell, Christian, 2003. European Migration Policies in Flux: Changing Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion (Oxford, Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, James, 1899. Impressions of South Africa (London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Bryce, James, 1901. Studies in History and Jurisprudence (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Brysk, Alison and Shafir, Gershon, eds., 2004. People Out of Place. Globalization, Human Rights, and the Citizenship Gap (New York/London, Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBOS, 2004. “Korupcja, nepotyzm, nieuczcziwy lobbing”: http://www.cbos.pl.Google Scholar
Chebel d’Appollonia Ariane, 1998. Les racismes ordinaires (Paris, Presses de Sciences Po).Google Scholar
Chandhoke, Neera, 2002. “The Limits of Global Civil Society” in Marlies, Glasius, Kaldor, Mary and Anheier, Helmut, eds., Global Civil Society Yearbook 2002 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 35-53).Google Scholar
Clark, Grover, 1936. The Balance Sheets of Imperialism. Facts and Figures on Colonies (New York, Russell & Russell).Google Scholar
Collier, David and Levitsky, Steven, 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research”, World Politics 49, pp. 430-451.Google Scholar
Conklin, Alice L., 1997. A Mission to Civilize: the Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1895-1930. (Stanford, Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Conze, Werner, Koselleck, Reinhard and Brunner, Otto, eds. 1972-1984. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur Politisch-Sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Stuttgart, Klett Verlag).Google Scholar
Cooper, Frederick and Stoler, Ann Laura, eds., 1997. Tensions of Empire. Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, 2006. A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, 1989. Democracy and its Critics (New Haven/London, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, 2002. How Democratic is the American Constitution? (New Haven/London, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf, 1969. Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, Doubleday).Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella and Tarrow, Sidney, 2001. Transnational Protest and Global Activism (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Duchesne, Sophie, 2001.“Citoyen, citoyenneté” in Perrineau, Pascal et Reynié, Dominique, dir., Dictionnaire du Vote (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France pp. 189-194).Google Scholar
Fleming, Abraham. 1576. A Panoplie of Epistles (London, H. Middleton).Google Scholar
Foner, Eric, 1998. The Story of American Freedom (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Forsythe, David P., 2002. “The United States and International Criminal Justice”, Human Rights Quarterly, 24, pp. 974-991.Google Scholar
French, Joseph, 1987. “100 Haitians, Trying to Vote, Encounter ‘Utter Blood Bath’”, New York Times, November 27, p. A1.Google Scholar
Furet, François, 1983. Penser la Révolution française (Paris, Gallimard).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, Walter B., 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (new series), pp. 167-192.Google Scholar
Gastil, Raymond D., 1991. “The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions”, in Inkeles, Alex, ed., On Measuring Democracy. Its Consequences and Concomitants (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, pp. 21-46).Google Scholar
Giliomee, Hermann, 2003. The Afrikaners. Biography of a People (Charlotesville, University of Virginia Press).Google Scholar
Giliomee, Hermann, 2004. “The Afrikaners and Democracy in South Africa”, Paper prepared for the South African History Museum, Slave Lodge, Cape Town, to accompany exhibition Ten Years of Freedom.Google Scholar
Go, Julian and Foster, Anne L., eds., 2003. The American Colonial State in the Philippines. Global Perspectives (Durham/ London, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A., 2004. “More social movements or fewer? Beyond political opportunity structures to relational fields”, Theory and Society 33, pp. 333-365.Google Scholar
Goodhart, Michael, 2005. Democracy as Human Rights: Freedom and Equality in the Age of Globalization (New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff, Jasper, James M. and Polletta, Francesca, eds., 2001. Passionate Politics. Emotions and Social Movements (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff and Jasper, James M., eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Movements. Structure, Meaning and Emotion (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Guiraudon, Virginie, 2001. “Weak Weapons of the Weak? Transnational Mobilization around Migration in the European Union”, in Imig, Doug and Tarrow, Sidney, eds., Contentious Europeans. Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 163-183).Google Scholar
Hermet, Guy, 1984. « Prédestination ou Stratégie », Esprit, 90, pp. 131-141.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Abram, 1937. Selected Writing of Abram S. Hewitt, ed., Nevins, Alan. (New York, Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Huard, Raymond, 1991. Le Suffrage Universel en France (1848-1946), (Paris, Aubier).Google Scholar
Imig, Doug and Tarrow, Sidney, eds., 2001. Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Jaggers, Keith and Gurr, Ted Robert, 1995. “Tracking Democracy’s Third Wave with the Polity III Data”, Journal of Peace Research 32, pp. 469-482.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998. Activists beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Keyssar, Alexander, 2000. The Right to Vote. The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (New York, Basic Books).Google Scholar
Khagram, Sanjeev, Riker, James and Sikkink, Kathryn, eds., 2002. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
Koopmans, Ruud and Statham, Paul, eds., 2000. Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics: Comparative European Perspectives (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Korzeniewicz, Roberto P. and Smith, William C., 2001. “Protest and Collaboration: Transnational Civil Society Networks and the Politics of Summitry and Free Trade in the Americas”, paper 51, North-South Center, University of Miami.Google Scholar
Lal, Vinay. 1998. “Organic Conservatism, Administrative Realism, and the Imperialist Ethos in the ‘Indian Career’ of John Stuart Mill”: http://www.ssenet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jsmill.html.Google Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice E. and Molina, Iván, 2002. Stuffing the Ballot Box: Fraud, Electoral Reform, and Democratization in Costa Rica. (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, 1997. “Unequal Participation. Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma”, American Political Science Review, 91(1), pp. 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. 2000 [1975]. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Boulder/LondonLynne Rienner).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred, 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore/London, Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M and Schneider, William, 1983. The Confidence Gap (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
McCarthy, John and Zald, Meyer, 1987. “The Trend of Social Movements in America” in Zald, Meyer and McCarthy, John, eds., Social Movements in an Organizational Society (New Brunswick, Transaction Books).Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, Brinks, Daniel and Pérez-Liñan, Aníbal, 2001. “Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999Studies in Comparative International Development 36, pp. 37-65.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard, 1997. The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Markoff, John, 1996. Waves of Democracy. Social Movements and Political Change (Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markoff, John, 1999a. “Where and When Was Democracy Invented? ”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41, pp. 660-690.Google Scholar
Markoff, John, 1999b. “From Center to Periphery and Back Again: The Geography of Democratic Innovation” in Hanagan, Michael and Tilly, Charles, eds., Extending Citizenship, Reconfiguring States (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 229-246).Google Scholar
Markoff, John, 2003. “Margins, Centers and Democracy: The Paradigmatic History of Women’s Suffrage”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29, pp. 85-116.Google Scholar
Markoff, John, 2004. “Who Will Construct the Global Order?” in Morrison, Bruce W., ed., Transnational Democracy in Critical and Comparative Perspective: Democracy’s Range Reconsidered (London, Ashgate, pp. 19-36).Google Scholar
Mehta, Uday S., 1997. “Liberal Strategies of Exclusion”, in Cooper, Frederick and Stoler, Ann L., eds., Tensions of Empire. Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 59-86).Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. and Gosnell, Harold F., 1924. Non-Voting. Causes and Methods of Control (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Mill, John S., 1991 [1861]. Considerations on Representative Government (Buffalo, Prometheus).Google Scholar
Mill, John S., 2003 [1859]. On Liberty (New Haven/ London, Yale University Press)Google Scholar
Miller, Kenneth E. 1961. “John Stuart Mill’s Theory of International Relations”, Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (4), pp. 493-514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, Wolfgang, 1974. The Age of Bureaucracy. Perspectives on the Political Sociology of Max Weber (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Mommsen, Wolfgang, 1984. Max Weber and German Politics, 1890-1920 (Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew, 2000. “The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe” (International Organization 54, pp. 217-252).Google Scholar
Morgan, Edmund S., 1988. Inventing the People: the Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Morrison, Bruce W., ed., 2004. Transnational Democracy in Critical and Comparative Perspective: Democracy’s Range Reconsidered (London, Ashgate Publishing).Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed., 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph, Zelikow, Philip and King, David, 1997. Why People Don’t Trust Government, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Palmer, Robert, 1953. “Notes on the Use of the Word ‘Democracy’, 1789-1799”, Political Science Quarterly, 68, pp. 203-226.Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela, 2000. “Women’s Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 35, pp. 92-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, Kenneth, 2003. “Bartolomé de Las Casas and the Tradition of Medieval Law” (updated): http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/LasCasas2.html.Google Scholar
Pharr, Susan and Putnam, Robert, eds., 2000. Disaffected Democracies. What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, 2009. “Self-Government in Our Times”, Annual Review of Political Science, 12, pp. 71-92.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, José Antonio and Limongi, Fernando, 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well - Being in the World, 1950-1990 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Ramírez, Francisco O., Soysal, Yasemin and Shanahan, Suzanne, 1997. “The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women’s Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990American Sociological Review 62 (5), pp. 735-745.Google Scholar
Roth, Benita, 2004. Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movements in America’s Second Wave (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John D., 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy (Cambridge, Polity).Google Scholar
Sanger, David, 2004. “The 2004 Campaign: On The Trail - Political Memo; At All Bush Rallies, Message Is ‘Freedom Is on the March’”, New York Times, October 21.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas, 2001. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 36, pp., 66-92.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1999. Development as Freedom (New York, Knopf).Google Scholar
Sewell, William H. Jr., 1988. “Le Citoyen/La Citoyenne: Activity, Passivity, and the Revolutionary Concept of Citizenship” in Lucas, Sir Colin, ed., The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture. Vol. 2: The Political Culture of the French Revolution (Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 105-123).Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2004. A New World Order (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Smith, Jackie, 2004a. “Exploring Connections Between Global Integration and Political MobilizationJournal of World-System Research 10 (1), pp. 255-285.Google Scholar
Smith, Jackie, 2004b. “Transnational Processes and Movements” in Snow, David A., Soule, Sarah A. and Kriesi, Hanspeter, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Malden, Blackwel, pp. 311-335).Google Scholar
Smith, Jackie, 2008. Social Movements for Global Democracy (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Smith, Jackie and Wiest, Dawn, 2005. “The Uneven Geography of Global Civil Society: Explaining Participation in Transnational Social Movement Organizations”, Social Forces, 84, pp. 621-652.Google Scholar
Soros, George, 2000. Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (New York, Public Affairs).Google Scholar
Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu, 1994. Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph, 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Sullivan, Eileen P., 1983. “Liberalism and Imperialism: J.S. Mill’s Defense of the British Empire”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (4), pp. 599-617.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney, 2001. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science 4, pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
Therborn, Göran, 1977. “The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy”, New Left Review, 103, May-June, pp. 3-41.Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Palmer, 1985. The Heavy Dancers (New York, Pantheon Books).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 1997. “Democracy is a Lake”, in Tilly, Charles, ed., Roads from Past to Future (Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 193-215).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 2004a. Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650-2000 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 2004b. Social Movements, 1768-2004 (Boulder/ London, Paradigm Publisher).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 2006. Regimes and Repertoires (Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 2008. Contentious Performances (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles and Wood, Lesley, 2003. “Contentious Connection in Great Britain, 1828–1834”, in Diani, Mario and McAdam, Doug, eds., Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to Collective Action (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1955 [1856]. The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Garden City, Doubleday/Anchor Books).Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1942 [1893]. Souvenirs (Paris, Gallimard).Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1994 [1835, 1840]. Democracy in America (New York, Knopf).Google Scholar
Vanhanen, Tatu, 1997. Prospects of Democracy: a Study of 172 Countries (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel, 2002. “Citizens All? Citizens Some! The Making of the Citizen”, E.P. Thompson Memorial Lecture presented at the University of Pittsburgh: http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwepthomp.htm.Google Scholar