Revolution only occurs when people are willing to die for it. The last few days of May 2020 showed that thousands of people were willing to risk their lives in the struggle against the racist capitalist system. Rage at four hundred years of oppression, exploitation, and denigration, at the systemic murder of black, brown, and indigenous people, and at wanton, visible, and permissible police violence could no longer be contained. Between the virus and the economy, there was nothing left to lose.

As countries around the world went into lockdown, we turned to 32 leading scholars working on different aspects of democracy and asked them what they think about how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted democracy. In this article, we synthesize the reflections of these scholars and present five key insights about the prospects and challenges of enacting democracy both during and after the pandemic: (1) COVID-19 has had corrosive effects on already endangered democratic institutions, (2) COVID-19 has revealed alternative possibilities for democratic politics in the state of emergency, (3) COVID-19 has amplified the inequalities and injustices within democracies, (4) COVID-19 has demonstrated the need for institutional infrastructure for prolonged solidarity, and (5) COVID-19 has highlighted the predominance of the nation-state and its limitations. Collectively, these insights open up important normative and practical questions about what democracy should look like in the face of an emergency and what we might expect it to achieve under such circumstances.

What is democratic theory? The question is surprisingly infrequently posed. Indeed, the last time this precise question appears in the academic archive was exactly forty years ago, in James Alfred Pennock's (1979) book Democratic Political Theory. This is an odd discursive silence not observable in other closely aligned fields of thought such as political theory, political science, social theory, philosophy, economic theory, and public policy/administration – each of which have asked the “what is” question of themselves on regular occasion. The premise of this special issue is, therefore, to pose the question anew and break this forty-year silence.

This paper analyses the Interest Group approach to political choice, an approach that has recently been adopted by economists. The paper argues that Interest Group theorists have overlooked, and sometimes denied, the potential of their approach to distinguish between optimal and non-optimal (or ‘inefficient’) policy outcomes. The analysis is illustrated with examples from banking regulation.

This introductory article to Democratic Theory's special issue on the marginalized democracies of the world begins by presenting the lexical method for understanding democracy. It is argued that the lexical method is better than the normative and analytical methods at finding democracies in the world. The argument then turns to demonstrating, mainly through computational research conducted within the Google Books catalog, that an empirically demonstrable imbalance exists between the democracies mentioned in the literature. The remainder of the argument is given to explaining the value of working to correct this imbalance, which comes in at least three guises: (1) studying marginalized democracies can increase our options for alternative democratic actions and democratic innovations; (2) it leads to a conservation and public outreach project, which is epitomized in an “encyclopedia of the democracies”; and (3) it advocates for a decolonization of democracies’ definitions and practices and decentering academic democratic theory.

A substantial section of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the global South depend on foreign funds to conduct their operations. This paper explores how the availability of foreign funding affects their downward accountability, abilities to effect social change, and their relative influence in relation to traditional grassroots, membership-based organizations (GROs), which tend not to receive such funding. Drawing on a case study of Nicaragua, we challenge the notion that foreign funding of domestic NGOs leads to the evolution of civil society organizations, which have incentives and abilities to organize the marginalized sections of society in ways to effect social change in their interests. Instead, we find that foreign funding and corresponding professionalization of the NGO sector creates dualism among domestic civil society organizations. Foreign funding enhances the visibility and prestige of the “modern” NGO sector over traditional GROs. This has grave policy implications because foreign-funded NGOs tend to be more accountable to donors than beneficiaries and are more focused on service delivery than social change-oriented advocacy.

Some years ago, I was inspired by Foucault’s (1981) extraordinary statement at Stanford University that ‘Our societies have proved to be really demonic since they happened to combine those two games – the city-citizen game and the shepherd-flock game – within what we call modern states’ (239). So much was this the case that I cited the term ‘demonic societies’ in the title of a modest essay (Dean, 2001). One of the stranger effects of higher education’s neo-liberalization – to which a chapter is devoted in Wendy Brown’s important book – was that all research ‘outputs’ would be put in an online repository by the library. Libraries, which had hitherto been charged with the collection and organization of knowledge, would now be instruments in the management of the performance of academics. This cannot be a very satisfying job, which I imagine falls to those whose positions are among the most precarious of library staff. In any case, my essay was placed there not as ‘“Demonic societies”: liberalism, biopolitics and sovereignty’ but as ‘Democratic societies…’, and without the inverted commas of the original.

The notion that democracy is a system is ever present in democratic theory. However, what it means to think systemically about democracy (as opposed to what it means for a political system to be democratic) is under-elaborated. This article sets out a meta-level framework for thinking systemically about democracy, built upon seven conceptual building blocks, which we term (1) functions, (2) norms, (3) practices, (4) actors, (5) arenas, (6) levels, and (7) interactions. This enables us to systematically structure the debate on democratic systems, highlighting the commonalities and differences between systems approaches, their omissions, and the key questions that remain to be answered. It also enables us to push the debate forward both by demonstrating how a full consideration of all seven building blocks would address issues with existing approaches and by introducing new conceptual clarifications within those building blocks.

The volumes of historical data locked behind unstructured formats have long been a challenge for researchers in the computational humanities. While optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing have enabled large-scale text mining projects, the irregular formatting, inconsistent terminology and evolving printing practices complicate automated parsing and information extraction efforts for historical documents. This study explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) in processing and structuring irregular and non-standardized historical materials, using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Inventory books (1898–2008) as a test case. Given the frequent evolution of these historical records, we implemented a pipeline combining OCR, custom segmentation rules and LLMs to extract structured data from the scanned texts. It provides an example of how incorporating LLMs into data-processing pipelines can enhance the accessibility and usability of historical and archival materials for scholars.

As both human longevity and diagnostic ability improve, more individuals are being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia disease (Alzheimer’s). Yet there is a paucity of new Alzheimer’s research trials. One obstacle to research is the large number of Alzheimer’s patients deemed incapable of providing informed consent for clinical research. Research advance directives (RADs) offer patients the opportunity to provide informed consent before incapacity occurs. However, critics question whether RADs guarantee informed consent, claiming that due to the nature of the disease, the consenting agent is no longer the same person after becoming incapacitated. This paper assesses the debate while using a conception of personhood, informed by the latest Alzheimer’s research, which does not reduce the concept of personhood to psychological capacities. It explains how personal identity can persist despite Alzheimer’s, such that RADs can and should suffice for informed consent.