الديمقراطية ونقادها

by Robert A. Dahl, نمير عباس مظفر (Translator), روبرت دال

In this book, one of the most prominent political theorists of our era makes a statement about what democracy is and why it is important. Robert Dahl examines the most basic assumptions of democratic theory, tests them against the questions raised by its critics, and recasts the theory of democracy in a new and coherent whole. He concludes by discussing the directions in which democracy must move if advanced democratic states are to exist in the future.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Academic, Theory

608 pages, Unknown Binding

First published October 1, 1989

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

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book, although I have very serious complaints. Read Milliband's "The State in Capitalist Society" for Marxist counterarguments to some of Dahl's rosier beliefs. You might also want to read the (controversial?) article "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Gilens and Page, which has a nice literature review of various theories of American democracy, and more importantly provides numerical evidence that challenges Dahl's view of "majoritarian pluralism".

Good ( in that he confirms my biases :) ):
* Recognizes that modern democracies don't live up to his ideal of democracy in significant ways, due to significant economic, educational, and participational inequalities
* Believes that some amount of economic democracy is desirable, and that the existence of property rights are ideally something the public should be able to vote on
* Is anxious about the decline of democracy due to the rise of "public policy elites", lack of democracy in transnational organizations
* Argues that all immigrants should have voting rights
* Argues against the US supreme court
* Pragmatic view of democratic process

Interesting:
* Rise of democracy being associated with changes in military technology. Cavalry -> aristocracy, infantry -> democracy. (Drones -> ?)
* Historical details about early Greek democracy
* Relationship between the "democratic" and "republican" intellectual traditions
* Flexible ideas about scope of democracy (local, national, international, maybe some decisions should be delegated to certain scopes in a pragmatic manner, relationship with consociational systems)

Bad:
* His discussion of democracy's "adversarial critics" is very uncharitable to their intellectual traditions, full of straw men. Misreads Lenin and Gramsci, doesn't cite any actual anarchists.
* "[C]ompetition for votes among parties intent on winning elections is analogous to competition among firms in a market. In both cases if barriers are low to the formation of new firms or parties, then monopoly domination becomes impossible to sustain." This is the best argument he can muster for why modern democracies are not actually controlled, in crucial aspects, by the desires and decisions of dominant minorities?!! Comparing politics to neoclassical economics?
* The rest of his argument against the existence of dominant minorities in modern democracies is essentially: "You can't prove it, your theories aren't quantitative, and there's no such thing as a public will anyways so you don't get to say that governments are ignoring the public will". I wish he would have dealt with examples of capital flight derailing democratic socialist experiments.
* At best, his argument for existing democracies is that political parties can be voted out, so there is some amount of elite competition for the management of the country. But it is still very unclear to me how competition among elites to prevent public unrest can be theoretically distinguished from non-democratic modes of governance.
* He generally has a lot of optimism that existing democracies can become closer to true democracy via the slow improvement of public opinion, as evidenced by the extension of voting rights and civil liberties. Even though he recognizes that serious extra-democratic struggle was involved (civil war, civil rights movement), he seems to view these as struggles to change public opinion, not struggles to changes relationships of power and domination.

[Nusrah Javed]

OH YEAH. FINISHED THIS BOOK END TO END. I FEEL SO EFFING PROUD IT IS NOT EVEN FUNNY.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like it or not, this is almost a must-read for all poli-scientists.

Dahl discusses the term "democracy", how to define it and pros and cons with different definitions.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dear academics:

Ever wonder why nobody in the whole wide world cares what you think? It may have something to do with the fact that you suck at communicating.

This book wasn't worth reading. I have an advanced degree in political science but I found myself skimming the last half. Almost nothing concrete to agree or disagree with. Written by a professor who likes to use big words for the sake of using big words. The "dialogue" was particularly atrocious (I can use big words, too!).

I can't even say anything about the argument, mostly because it lacked a clearly stated purpose.

[Ewa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Przeczytałam tylko po to, żeby napisać o tym esej na podniesienie oceny i tbh nie wiem, czy było warto. Na spokojnie mogła się zmieścić w 200 stronach

[Maja Lindgren]

Det enda jag hinner läsa nuförtiden är kurslitteratur. Tycker ändå jag förtjänar att lägga till denna😪

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As for the content of this book, First, this book told us the roots of thought and practice of modern democracy. Second, it explained why democracy is important and why it is better than anarchism and guardianship. Third, it illustrated the limitations and possibilities of democracy and how to make it better. Forth, it explained the difference between polyarchy and democracy. Finally, it made a presumption of democracy in the future. all in all, the content was rather thought-provoking.
as for the expression of this book, it was very logical. if I missed one part, then I wouldn't understand what the author has said. so when you read, you had better not skip any paragraphs.

[Amber · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a lot of information, a lot, so trudging through the pages does pay off in the end. If you are into democratic theory at all you need to read this book.
The author uses a sort of discourse style, with two people with opposing viewpoints having a conversation over the relevant subjects throughout the book. I found this style a bit distracting, I could have understood the data better if it was presented in regular format.

[Modisi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would argue that this is Dahl's masterpiece, a result of decades of research. It is concise, well-argued and well-written all around - a merit that many philosophical and theoretical works lack. Dahl is a democratic optimist - if you ever find yourself swimming in dark undercurrents of anti-democracy - something that is understandable in our era - Dahl can be your lifesaver.

[Curtis Bentley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Somewhat dry for most, I imagine, but written in what I think is a fascinating style and full of excellent insight.

[Miriam · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good summary of the arguments around republicanism, democracy, and pluralism. It's timely in that he discusses the dangers inherent to democracy in extreme inequality.

[William Troy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I one wants to really understand democracy, one should read Professor Robert A. Dahl's books on Democracy. This is the fourth book by this author that I have completed. Although the Professor is deceased, this book is still relevant. It begins with the historical foundations of modern democracy. He goes on to describe its critics and their theories. He then begins to build the theory of democratic process. Next the author addresses the problems in the democratic process and its limits and possibilities. Lastly Professor Dahl discusses the transformation possible in the future.
Professor Dahl lists the criteria of the Democratic Process as: Control over governmental decision are vested in elected officials; elected officials are chosen and removed by frequent, fair elections; practically all adults have the right to vote; most adults have the right to run for public office; citizens have enforced rights to freedom of expression including criticism of the government, officials and ideology; there is access to alternative sources of information that are not monopolized by the government; citizens have the right to join autonomous organizations that attempt to influence the government by peaceful means (Dahl, p.233).
The reader becomes aware that in reality very few people really make the decisions of governing. There is always a potential of minority rule. The author states, "Minority domination requires an intellectual and cultural hegemony of certain ideas and beliefs that are widely shared in a society - in a capitalist society by workers as well as the middle classes. Held fast in the cultural grip of the hegemonic belief system, even workers support a system of domination that violates their long-run interests" (Dahl, p. 275).
There is a lot of political philosophy and political theory in this book and it is not for the feint of heart reader. It is informative and enlightening when one learns how little real influence on has in a democracy. That is why voting matters!

[Anderson Paz · Rating 5 out of 5]

O objetivo de Dahl é tratar da importância e limites da democracia e enfrentar os argumentos dos principais críticos ao regime democrático. Para o autor, a democracia é o melhor processo para tomada de decisões coletivas e vinculatórias.
O livro é dividido em seis partes: as origens da democracia moderna, os críticos de oposição, uma teoria do processo democrático, problemas no processo democrático, os limites e as possibilidades da democracia, rumo à terceira transformação.
Dahl constrói uma série de diálogos imaginados entre interlocutores críticos à democracia. Além disso, apresenta a importância da poliarquia, discute temas comunitaristas, trata do Judiciário enquanto "quase guardiania". É uma das principais obras sobre e em defesa da democracia.

[sabine · Rating 3 out of 5]

review to come but not only did i finish this but i took a practice lsat, wrote an article for the tech, and wrote up some discussion questions wrt science policy today..... HEAVY prelaw energy this sunday

[Elliot Kaufman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good statement.

[Drew Penrose · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I had read this a long time ago. It helped clarify a lot of my own thinking around democracy, and is written in a very accessible way.

[Faisal Jamal · Rating 3 out of 5]

عمل اكاديمي تعليمي يشرح الديمقراطية ويرد على الانتقادات التي ترد على الانظمة الديمقراطية

[Amr Fahmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

استغرق مني هذا الكتاب نحو شهرين لقراءته، وكنت قد سمعت عنه قبل سنوات والحقيقة أنه جدير بكل دقيقة أمضيتها في مطالعته رغم ضيقي من بعض الفصول مثل "الخير العام"، لكن في المجمل هو عمل تأسيسي واقعي أراه من أهم ما قرأت على الإطلاق.

[Nicholas · Rating 4 out of 5]

liked it a lot. establishes that democracy is built on some weak foundations--leftover bits of 18th century thought, some ideas borrowed from the Greeks, etc--briefly evaluates the alternatives of anarchy and what the author calls "guardianship", then makes a case more or less from first principles for self-rule, to include examining majority rule democracies vs competing systems.

a little dry at times, but not particuarly difficult reading. (it's modern enough that it's not nearly as dense as some of the other stuff on the topic.) i'll still probably reread it after it's had a while to sink in.

[Elena Prieto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me pareció muy interesante. Pienso que cualquier interesado en la ciencia política debería leer este libro, pues resulta influyente y relevante en esta materia. Se puede estar en desacuerdo con el autor en algunos aspectos y, además, en cierta manera, el contenido está un poco desfasado. No obstante, merece la pena echarle un vistazo a algunos apartados.

[Eduardo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Um resumo excelente sobre a democracia até a parte quatro, quando ele passa a introduzir suas próprias ideias.
O livro vai perdendo um pouco em clareza até chegar nas conclusões do capítulo 23, que é simplesmente constrangedor.

[Grace]

fuck strathclyde uni and fuck dahl. My head has hurt since i read this

[Ronaboyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mengulang kembali salah satu tokoh yang sering dikutip saat berbicara 'Demokrasi'. Ada banyak hal seru yang sering kita temui dalam demokrasi dewasa ini. Sesuatu yang wajib sekaligus menakutkan.