عن الديمقراطية

by Robert A. Dahl, أحمد أمين الجمل (ترجمة), روبرت دال

"Democracy has been discussed off and on for about twenty-five hundred years, enough time to provide a tidy set of ideas about democracy on which everyone, or nearly everyone, could agree. For better or worse, that is not the case." Freshman poly-sci instructors need fret no longer, however; as an introduction to democratic principles, Robert A. Dahl's On Democracy is rather tidy, indeed. Dahl, an emeritus professor of political science at Yale, covers questions like "Where and how did democracy develop?" in accessible--almost chatty--prose, often taking the time to say a few "words about words," in which he examines, for example, the historical connotations of "democracy" and "republic" (it turns out that until James Madison declared there was a political distinction to be made, the only difference between the two was their etymological roots). Experienced readers may find their eyes glazing over at pronouncements such as "Democratic institutions are less likely to develop in a country subject to intervention by another country hostile to democracy in that country," but if you're looking for a comprehensive yet brief overview of how democracy works, On Democracy fits the bill.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Philosophy, History, School, Social Science

198 pages, Paperback

First published December 11, 1998

About the author

Robert A. Dahl was one of the most influential political theorists of the twentieth century, best known for his foundational work on pluralist democracy and the concept of "polyarchy." A Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale University, Dahl advanced empirical approaches to political science and reshaped understandings of democratic theory through both descriptive and normative lenses. He argued that political power in democracies is distributed among multiple interest groups rather than centralized in a single elite, a view he expounded in seminal works such as A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) and Who Governs? (1961), the latter based on a case study of New Haven, Connecticut. His concept of polyarchy described modern representative democracies as systems characterized by key institutions like free elections, inclusive suffrage, and civil liberties.
Born in Inwood, Iowa, and raised in Skagway, Alaska, Dahl drew early insights from his experiences among working-class communities. After earning his undergraduate degree from the University of Washington, he completed his Ph.D. at Yale in 1940. He served in World War II as a reconnaissance platoon leader in Europe, earning a Bronze Star. After the war, he returned to Yale, where he taught for four decades and held leadership roles including department chair. Dahl also served as president of the American Political Science Association in 1966–67.
Throughout his career, Dahl explored the conditions and values essential to democratic governance. He articulated five criteria for evaluating democratic processes—effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion. He also identified seven institutional requirements of polyarchy, such as elected officials, free and fair elections, and associational autonomy. In his later work, including Democracy and Its Critics (1989) and On Democracy (1998), he examined democracy’s advantages over other forms of governance, such as fostering political equality and safeguarding personal freedom.
Dahl remained critical of American political structures, particularly the U.S. Constitution, which he saw as undemocratic by contemporary standards. In How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (2001), he critiqued the framers’ limitations, while acknowledging the practical challenges of reform. He continued to address issues of political equality in On Political Equality (2006).
Dahl was the recipient of numerous honors, including two Woodrow Wilson Foundation Book Awards and the inaugural Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. His legacy lives on in both theory and practice, with the American Political Science Association establishing the Robert A. Dahl Award in his honor. He passed away in 2014, leaving a lasting imprint on the study and practice of democracy.

Reviews

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow was this the right time to read this book. This is a republished political science classic that examines the definition of democracy and under what conditions democracy survives, thrives, and is a stable political system.

Quotations like this seem particularly resonant in our post-2020 USA election environment:

"If the underlying conditions are highly favorable, stability is likely with almost any constitution the country is likely to adopt. If the underlying conditions are highly unfavorable, no constitution will save democracy."

or

"What is more, democracy could not long exist unless its citizens manage to create and maintain a supportive political culture, indeed a general culture supportive of these ideals and practices."

More a descriptive survey than a prescriptive cookbook, this book made me appreciate again how fragile our democracy has become over the last few decades.

**Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for a free copy in exchange for an honest review.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

The teacher that assigned this book called it “The Folk Theory of Democracy” and I think that sums this up well. It helped to frame how we’ve gotten to where we are “today” with democracy, but it seems to be very set in the 1990s when it was published by a white man (“diversity is the death of democracy” (paraphrasing, but barely) i.e). Still, I do appreciate the framework of democracy and the institutions that hold it up, as well as the exploration into some of the benefits.

[strelitzia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was used as a reading in one of our online classes years ago. The book covers essential topics on democracy; the language used by the author in the discussion of concepts makes it a suitable read for anyone who wants to start learning about this particular form of government.

[Tatiana Zhandarmova · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly really engaging!

[Anderson Paz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Em primeiro lugar, essa não é uma obra "acadêmica". Dahl escreveu essa obra com o objetivo de ser um manual introdutório aos elementos, instituições e importância da democracia. De início, Dahl apresenta onde surgiu e se desenvolveu a democracia.
Já na parte seguinte, o autor apresenta e discute os critérios para identificar uma democracia, como também as vantagens desse regime. Dahl encontra no valor da igualdade intrínseca o fundamento da democracia.
Em seguida, já na parte III, Dahl apresenta as instituições políticas necessárias para uma democracia em larga escala. Nesse ponto, o autor discute seu conceito de poliarquia. E argumenta que devido ao tamanho das nações modernas, só o regime representativo é possível para uma democracia. Ainda discute as variações nas constituições democráticas e sua importância, como também os modelos de sistemas eleitorais e de representação partidária.
Na última parte, o autor trata das condições essenciais e favoráveis à democracia e debate o que favorece e prejudica esse regime. O livro conta com uma lista de livros importantes sobre o regime democrático. É um bom "manual" introdutório, sem maiores pretensões acadêmicas.

[Marta · Rating 3 out of 5]

mucho texto

[Sofi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“[…] se si viene esclusi dal governo dello stato, ci sono buone probabilità che i propri interessi non saranno considerati con la stessa attenzione degli interessi di coloro che hanno voce in capitolo. Se non hai voce, chi prenderà la parola per te? […]}

[Josep · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tot i la senzilla i entretinguda lectura i la seva pràctica aplicació, mostra poques justificacions o poc aquestes estan poc fonamentades a varies qüestions que presenta com la relació entre una societat sanament democràtica i l'economia de mercat.

[Al · Rating 5 out of 5]

De maneira clara e bastante didática, Dahl ilumina conceitos e mostra caminhos necessários à consolidação da democracia.

[Zanela · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rate books such as 'On Democracy' not only by the quality of information (which Dahl establishes so well), but also (and primarily) by the parsimony of its content. Dahl does this so well. So does Shapiro.

[Sergei Moska · Rating 1 out of 5]

From my perspective, awful. It's overly simplistic and condescendingly written. I understand that it was written for a lay audience - a sort of "here's a taste of what democratic studies look like", and was going to give it two stars because I figured it might have some value for beginners. But then I thought about it, and I can't. His conclusions are at times misleading. At other times, he draws sweeping generalizations with very, very little argumentation. That's the main problem. The tone of the text should have been "Here is a lay of the land." Dahl's desire to offer conclusions, however, oftentimes pushes it into "Here is the correct answer to this theoretical issue." I imagine that some people will read this book and feel as thought they have strong arguments in favor of Dahl's position. Yet because this is a primer, Dahl (rightfully) doesn't demonstrate the full scope of the objections to his analytic and normative conclusions.

So to those of us who are democratic theorists, the book is not useful. To those who are not, this book is likely to be misleading. Hence one star.

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good, if not short, recap of democratic theory. Robert A. Dahl is a prominent political scientist and this is very evident throughout his books so stay away if your interests lie in radical political theories. Democracy is a very well thought out concept and most scholars acknowledge its weaknesses. Every time I thought that his analysis was superficial he would come up with a counter argument for my position. This was very evident in his critique of direct-democracy which is rarely criticized by libertarian leftists on a pragmatic basis. The most important idea is that Democracy is more of an ideal utopian concept and there are really no democratic countries in the world. What we do have is a polyarchy, a term which isn't fully explored here - you can check it out on Wikipedia, there's a full article there-. This book was written in 1996 and is still very relevant for beginners. I'll try his more academic works.

There's also a very good interview of Robert Dahl himself on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPl4Lk...

[Adam Šimice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dahl se nam ctenarum ve sve knize snazi vysvetlit, co to demokracie vlastne je, jeji vyhody a nevyhody, porovnava ji s jinymi rezimi atd. Samozrejme kazdy z nas ma jiz nejakou predstavu o demokracii. Tato kniha je urcena jak pro ty z nas, kteri o demokracii vedi malo, tak i pro ty, kteri toho vedi hodne. V kazde kapitole se Dahl obraci ke ctenari s ruznymi otazkami, ktery vetsinou zpochybni to, co si ctenar na predchozich stranach precetl, ale nasledne vse krasne vysvetli. Myslim, ze kniha obohati nejakym zpusobem kazdeho z nas - kazdeho bez rozdilu.

[Elia Mantovani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dahl's essay is a good introductory handbook. His aim is to exlpore both under a normative and a realistic perspective the crucial features of democratic regimes. The book is not at all excessively technical, apart from some sections. However, it is a bit nationally biased and too assertive, as far as I am concerned. The idea of spotting universal patterns of a certain human phenomenon looks like an outdated approach.

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

comprehensive book

[Clay Wescott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This classic is still highly relevant to our turbulent era of Proud Boys and the like. Takes a structured approach: moving from values to empirical testing. What is Democracy? The answer depends on what we believe is good, right, desirable. Why democracy? Depends both on values, and on interpretations of evidence, facts. What institutions and processes does democracy require? The answer relies more on evidence and empirical judgments, but still what matters depends on values expressed earlier. What conditions favor democracy? Depends entirely on interpreting available evidence.

Answering the first question, what is democracy? The minimum criteria or democratic ideals may never be reached, but they set a standard against which to evaluate alternative possibilities, solutions, practices and institutions. There are 5 criteria: effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults. By these measures, democracies have only in the last 100 years started to meet the fifth one, even though the concept of democacy goes back at least to Ancient Athens. For the second, Why democracy? there are 10 criteria, centering on rights, human development, freedom and prosperity. For the third, a key assumption is intrinsic political equality, based on ethical and religious grounds, the absence of alternatives, prudence and acceptability.

The remainder looks at what conditions favor democracy. Here there is a key distinction between democracies of different scales. At a small scale, such as a primitive hunting group or a town meeting today, there are fewer challenges in meeting the 5 criteria. At a large scale, these challenges loom larger, as participation needs to be through representation, and decisions get increasingly complex. The latter cases need elected officials, frequent fair elections, rules on freedom of speech, independent information, freedom to assemble, and inclusiveness. Again, no democracy meets the ideal in all these criteria, but the criteria set a standard against which to evaluate each case. There are many types of constitutions, electoral, party and leadership structures, and none can be called "best practice": it depends on the context. If conditions are favorable, democracy will work, if not, it probably won't, and if some conditions are favorable, it might work. Favorable conditions are: civilian control of military and police, democratic cultural beliefs, no strong foreign control opposing democracy, market economy, and reasonable cultural homogeneity. Looking forward, it is impossible to predict whether democracy will spread wider, as it has since the 1950s, or contract. One challenge is the fact that markets lead to economic inequality without deep regulation. A second challenge is increasing internationalism, which is anti-democratic. A third is increasing cultural pluralism, making consensus harder to achieve.

First published in 2000, updated with new chapters from Ira Shapiro in 2020. Shapiro confirms that Dahl's insights are still highly relevant today. In my view, the updating of the book should have said more about the rise of China, which has delivered rapid improvements in human development, albeit without key freedoms and liberties, through a different model of participation and accountability. Does this pose an existential challenge to democracy, or is it a unique model that will only work in China's special historical context?

[William J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

One has to read Dahl to understand democracy! His style is almost conversational with the reader. I am partial to such a topic because my education is primarily in political science but this book is not solely for those of us who are poly sci wonks. One technique I liked in the book was the author's use of what he calls, Words About Words. He use this technique to explain a topic or phrase. My favorite is the one about the difference between democracy and republic. as Dahl states, "...the plain fact is that the words democracy and republic did not designate differences in types of popular government. What they reflected, at the cost of later confusion, was a difference between Greek and Latin, the languages from which they came"(Dahl, p. 17). Dahl also identifies the six elements required in Large-Scale Democracy: Elected Officials; Free, Fair, and Frequent Elections; Freedom of Expression; Alternative Sources of Information; Associational Autonomy; Inclusive Citizenship (Dahl, p.85). To Dahl, full inclusion is defined as, " The citizen body in a democratically governed state must include all persons subject to the laws of that state except transients and persons proved to be incapable of caring for themselves" (Dahl, p. 78). Something we seemed to have forgotten of late in politics is what Dahl points out on page 73, "To govern a state well takes more than knowledge. It also requires incorruptibility, a firm resistance to all the enormous temptations of power, a continuing and inflexible dedication to the public good rather than benefits for oneself or one's group" (Dahl, p.73). Another point that the Professor Dahl makes is that a criterion for the democratic process is, "...enlightened understanding: within reasonable limits as to time, each member (citizen) must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about relevant alternative policies and their likely consequences" (Dahl, p. 185). In our current polarized world we fail to educate ourselves about alternative policies because of the "our way or the highway" attitude. I recommend this book to all citizens of the United States. This is the Second Edition with two additional chapters by Ian Shapiro published by Yale University Press in 2015.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 2 out of 5]

I want to like Dahl's work more than I do but can't. As critical as he is of current institutions, especially the American democratic state, ultimately he's an apologist for the status quo. For instance, here are his criteria for large-scale democracies:

1. Elected officials
2. Free, fair, and frequent elections
3. Freedom of expression
4. Alternative sources of information
5. Associational autonomy
6. Inclusive citizenship

Let's look at what the first amounts to in fact and how the reality basically topples any currency that the other criteria have.

Here Dahl describes what he means by elected officials: "control over government decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in officials elected by citizens. Thus modern, large-scale democratic governments are representative."

Note the slippage. The conclusion is invalid. While it's true we elect officials to serve in government for us, it doesn't follow that our government is representative in any real sense of the term.

About 10 years back, political scientist Martin Gilens really did a number on public policy data over the last 20 years and counting. He discovered that even when a policy issue was in the Overton window along the so-called liberal-conservative spectrum, those American citizens up to the 80th percentile had zero effect on public policy. That's evidence that runs contrary to the idea that America has a representative democracy.

Dahl claimed to be a behavioral political scientist in the sense that he wanted to look at how systems actually worked. I think the work Dahl produced mostly failed to do that. Worse than failed. At best what we get from Dahl is the judgment that we have a mostly good system that just happens to be plagued by elite imperfections. It's almost as if these elite imperfections were by design.

[Sara Adeeb]

عرض اليكس دي توكفيل في كتابه الديمقراطية في امريكا فكرة اساسية وهي ان المساواة تشكل خطراً حقيقياً على الحرية، فحسب رأيه ان ازدياد المساواة يزيد من عدة احتمالات في الديمقراطية احدها حكم الغوغاء او الارهاب، والذي سيزداد قوة لان الرأي العام يقف وراء الغوغاء وهذا يمثل عنده احد اكبر عيوب الديمقراطية. بالاضافة لذلك يرى توكفيل ان الاغلبية وممثليها قد يتصرفون بصورة قانونية ولكنها غير عادلة، لانها حتماً ستتعارض مع مصالح واراء كيان اخر هو الاقلية.

حجة توكفيل الاساسية تتمثل في : ان الديمقراطية لا يمكن ان تتواجد بغير درجة عادية من المساواة الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية، غير ان هذه المساواة الضرورية جداً للديمقراطية تهدد الحرية، فالديمقراطية تتطلب المساواة، غير ان درجة المساواة ضرورية جداً للديمقراطية لكي توجد، تحمل معها ايضاً احتمالاً بأن النظام الديمقراطي قد يتحول الى شكل من الاستبداد لم يسبق له مثيل تاريخياً.


رداً على توكفيل يصوغ روبرت أ. دال عدة من التساؤلات (في كتابه مقدمة الى الديمقراطية الاقتصادية )و يجد ان توكفيل لم يورد الاجابة عنها في جزئي كتابه الديمقراطية في امريكا واحد اهم هذه التساؤلات : لنفترض انه امكننا ان نضع معياراً للتعرف على حالات ظلم الاغلبية وطغيان الاغلبية، لكن ستبقى هناك مشكلة عويصة هي بماذا ينبغي ان نقارن اداء النظم الديمقراطية؟ ولنفترض اننا وفقاً للمعايير نقبل ان الديمقراطية تتصرف بصورة استبدادية و ظالمة، ولكن وفقاً للمعايير نفسها نتبين ان كل النظم تتصرف احياناً بطريقة ظالمة ومستبدة، فأين يتركنا ذلك؟ واذا كانت الديمقراطية تتصرف بطريقة استبدادية حقاً كباقي النظم الاخرى، فسوف يكون من الصعب اعتباره عيباً خاصاً بالديمقراطية وحدها، والسؤال هنا سيوجه : هل الديمقراطيةاكثر عرضة لهذا النوع من الاثام من اية بدائل لها؟

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by the preeminent democratic theorist of our time, this book explains the nature, value, and mechanics of democracy. In a new introduction to this Veritas edition, Ian Shapiro considers how Dahl would respond to the ongoing challenges democracy faces in the modern world.

An apt book considering the democratic processes we’re watching unfurl right now, if you have been captured by the news and politics is your thing you interest you will fall headfirst into this book but if you’re looking for something light, this might not be right for you. A book in moments that can feel quite heavy, Dahl here gives you the reader on Democracy and walks you through the history of democracy and how it is put to use in the USA and globally.

A thorough walk through the differences between the ideal democracy and the reality of it, On Democracy is a book for those probably into or studying the area to get into as he explores the who, what, why of the subject and really explores interpretation of what we mean by the subject. For me it was an easy read with chapters that I got through pretty quickly as the writing isn’t terribly complicated and Dahl does a good job of making it interesting.

A great read if Politics is your interest, it makes it clear just what we need from democracy and leaves you wondering if we really have perfected it yet.

(I received an ARC from Netgalley for honest review).

[أبوحامد]

من الكتب المهمة جدًا في الديمقراطية، يبين فيه مؤلفه طبيعة الديمقراطية وفلسفتها مع إدخال قضية النقد الموجود لها في الغرب من خلال شرح بعض الفلسفات المعارضة لها والمصطلحات المنضوية تحتها، الكتاب يتميز بالطبيعة السردية والتفصيلية فهو فالبداية تحدث عن منشأ الفكرة وأصلها عن الإغريق وأن لهم أثرًا في تطورها وقد كان فصلًا مهمًا، ويحاول أيضًا في الكتاب شرح فلسفة الديمقراطية وكيف تعمل على أرض الواقع ، من القضايا المميزة كما ذكرنا حضور الجانب النقدي للديموقراطية في الغرب فقد ذكر المؤلف الفلسفة الفوضوية ونظرية حكم الوصاية وقد استخدم المؤلف طريقة لطيفة في هذا الفصل وهي طريق الحوارات مثل(قال الديمقراطي:
                      قال الفوضوي: وهكذا) والمميز فيها أنها تدخلك في جزئيات النقاش السياسي خاصةً في نقد الديمقراطية وفهمها، وتحدث المؤلف عن النظرية العملية لهذه الفكرة وأيضًا مشكلات الديمقراطية مثل قضية قاعدة الأغلبية وقد توسع فيها ونلحظ هنا دخوله في التفاصيل بشكل أكبر، تحدث أيضًا عن قضية مهمة صاغها بسؤال وهو متى يكون الشعب مؤهلًا للعملية الديمقراطية، ذكر بعد ذلك حدود الديمقراطية وبيّن فيه انتقال الفكرة من موقع الدولة-المدينة إلى موقع الدولة القومية فلم تعد مقتصرة على الغرب بل زاد زخمها وتوسعها اعتناقها في مختلف أنحاء العالم، ثم توسع المؤلف بعد ذلك في ذكر تطور الديمقراطية وتفاصيل مايتعلق بها ولأن طبيعة الكتاب سردية فيصعب تلخيصها ولكنها مهمة جدًا، وفي آخر فصل يتساءل المؤلف عن تحول ثالث للديموقراطية والذي يرى أنه من الممكن جدًا بالنظر إلى تاريخها، ووجود حكام غير ديمقراطيين حاولوا الاستفادة منها لإضفاء الشرعية على حكمهم، الخلاصة أنه كتاب مهم جدًا.

[Will F · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an OK book. He spends a lot of words delving into the history and evolution of Democracy as an institution, which is valuable. Different voting systems are discussed (FPTP, ranked-choice, etc.) and their institutional relations. However Dahl's theoretical treatment of Democracy as an *idea* leaves a lot to be desired. The book, having been published in 2015, neglects to even mention Arrow's impossibility theorem which one would assume are central to Democratic systems. There is no excuse for this oversight as Arrow's ideas predate Dahl's book by almost 60 years. I expected more from such a highly praised scholar like Dahl. On the whole, the book is useful and some parts are genuinely illuminating, but if you want a deeper analysis of democracy you will have to look elsewhere.

With regards to the introduction by Ian Shapiro, it adds nothing at all. Simply armchair musing about how Dahl would view current events. Shapiro casually tars different political parties as "white supremacist" and "communist" without any sort of citation whatsoever. I am not familiar with the academic practices of political scientists, but this seems irresponsible. One gathers very quickly that the only view Shapiro thinks is legitimate is neoliberalism. Take that as you will.

[Barış]

Bu eser, Dahl'ın ölümünden önceki son günah çıkartması olarak okunabilir. Günah işlemiştir, çünkü demokrasinin aslında son derece sorunlu ve yetersiz bir siyasal yöntem olduğunu vurgulamadan, bu literatürün demokrasi güzellemesine doğrudan itirazda bulunmadan liberal demokrasinin kapitalizmle (ekonomik eşitsizlik) olan ilişkisine/birbirlerini mümkün kıldığına değinmiş, hatta sosyalist ekonomik sistemin bulunduğu yerlerde kendiliğinden otoriterleşmenin olduğunu iddia etmiştir. Fakat kitabın ikinci yarısında, işlediği bu günahı adeta affettirmeye girişmiş, ekonomik eşitsizlik doğuran kapitalizm varken insanların demokrasi gibi sorunlu bir sistemle yönetileceğini, gerçek siyasal eşitliğe (yani poliarşiye) ancak ekonomik eşitlik sayesinde varılabileceğini söyleyip sonlandırmıştır. Dahl'ın bu tutarsızlığı ilk bakışta demokrasi ile poliarşi arasında kurduğu farktan kaynaklanıyor gibi görünebilir, ancak okuyucular olarak "Madem sorunluydu, neden bu kadar övdün, madem ekonomik eşitlik gerekiyordu neden sosyalizmi aşağıladın?" diye sorduğumuzda karşımıza Dahl'ın ehven-i şer mantığıyla mevcut sistemi meşrulaştırması, adını açıkça telaffuz edemese de liberal demokrasi eleştirisi çıkar; ölmeden önce ağızdan çıkan son bir itiraf gibi.

[José Luis Valenciano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robert A. Dahl, fallecido en 2014 a los 98 años, en este breve y accesible libro hace un breve repaso histórico, expone de modo claro y nítido qué es la democracia, cuáles son sus elementos e instituciones imprescindibles y las condiciones más y menos favorables para su aparición y desarrollo.
Defiende la representación como hecho inseparable de la democracia, y única posibilidad a partir de niveles de población cada vez más elevados, amén de una mayor complejidad social.
Como politólogo, me parece un magnífico ejemplo de defensa de la democracia liberal y advertencia contra los cantos de sirena del populismo y de aquellos que defienden una democracia asamblearia que resulta impracticable en la práctica: todo sistema democrático tiende a la representación, ya que no todo el mundo está dispuesto o preparado para formar parte del juego. Por otro lado, de modo lógico la gente que comparta interés tenderá a delegar en uno o varios individuos la responsabilidad de su defensa en la esfera pública.

[Bean · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have any interest in political theory, well worth your time. I am not a student, nor is my primary interest in political theory, but because I read a ton of history this is invaluable for further understanding politics in history.

I like this book because it is well-written and smart, but also it's very basic, very elementary. I think everyone who just assumes, "oh, of COURSE I know what a democracy is, duh!" should read this, because it lays out and defines something I think many of us take for granted. It also shows the nuance of the fact that many countries are democratic on a certain scale, and certain factors/conditions are more advanced in some democratic countries contrasted with others.

Basic, but well worth the return to basics.

[Marc Sabatier · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess this was intended for a broader audience. Some parts are interesting, but it becomes a bit too broad and bland. And Dahl's main theoritical/conceptual contribution, "polyarchy", really stands as an unnecessary addition. The point is that "poly" is "many", and a democracy just is rule by a certain "demos" (people), but the people (suffrage) should be a majority of the polity's population. That seems already to be an implicit part of the term "democracy", and a given today. I think that the liberal components are what are more up for debate today, and to this it is simple to say "liberal democracy".

So not a big experience, but perhaps at a different time, it would've been.

[Fanglin · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who grew up knowing little about democracy or major forms of government, I found Dahl's book immensely helpful and interesting. He does a brilliant job of answering "what," "how,"and "why" about democracy. The prose is concise and the structure of the book makes it very easy to follow along and take notes. Also helpful is the "further reading" list at the end of the book that guides me to delve deeper into certain topics of democracy. A very good introductory book overall. Recommended for anyone wishing to learn the basics of democracy.

[Marcin Jezewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be a mandatory school reading. Dahl himself only briefly touched the topic of civic education but I think that’s exactly what we need to make sure extreme movements praying on uneducated and undereducated are not destroying our way of life. We need to make sure people understand what democracy is and what it is not and “On Democracy” is the perfect first read. In the world where social media posts make the limit of attention span and create simplified world of simpletons we should start looking into educating our children to make sure they live in a democratic future.

[Qian Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author uses simple language to explain the structure and history of democratic systems, which I found very enlightening. The author mentions the fall of the authoritarian Soviet Union as a step toward a more democratic world. Although the author notes that China has not experienced democracy in thousands of years, he fails to recognize the Chinese Communist Party's determination to dominate and control the world. The author also does not realize that globalization is simultaneously advancing authoritarianism around the globe. Democracy worldwide is on the brink of crisis.

[Taveri · Rating 2 out of 5]

At first i thought this might be a three star read but the fluff of words (paragraphs not saying much) made me think it was two stars and then the repeated repitition of concepts made me want to give it one star.

Chapter 11 on "Parties and Electoral Systems" was disappointing (as were most of the chapters). I did appreciate Chapter 15 > "Why Market Capitalism Favours Democracy."

Other reviewers mentioned it being a textbook > perhaps for Grade VI Social Studies.