Democracy: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #075

by Bernard Crick

No political concept is more used, and misused, than that of democracy. Nearly every regime today claims to be democratic, but not all "democracies" allow free politics, and free politics existed long before democratic franchises.
This book is a short account of the history of the doctrine and practice of democracy, from ancient Greece and Rome through the American, French, and Russian revolutions, and of the usages and practices associated with it in the modern world. It argues that democracy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for good government, and that ideas of the rule of law, and of human rights, should in some situations limit democratic claims.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Political Science, Audiobook, Sociology

144 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2002

About the author

Sir Bernard Rowland Crick was a British political theorist and democratic socialist whose views were often summarised as "politics is ethics done in public". He sought to arrive at a "politics of action", as opposed to a "politics of thought" or of ideology.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting times here in Britain. Two years ago we had an election, then we had a referendum, now we're gonna have another election to make sure the people who we elected two years ago do what we told them to do in last year's referendum.

Huh.

They interviewed a woman today and told her there's gonna be an election in June - what do you think about that? She disapproved vociferously, and said "There's too much politics already".

What did she mean by that?

Does she mean that she's happy to allow her future and everyone else's to be handed over to a goldenhued elite who get to play with the country like it's their little toy? People are stupid. In fact people that stupid shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Anyway, no doubt who's going to win this time - Theresa May's Conservatives, who will totally demolish Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party - the same party which won three huge election victories in a row some years ago. The wheel of fortune has really revolved. How the hugely popular Tony Blair was replaced eventually by the universally derided Corbyn is a great story which I try to summarise in my review of Comrade Corbyn.

I'm beginning to think I don't really understand what democracy is. You might think well, it's when everyone gets to vote in an election, and whoever gets the biggest vote wins. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the majority then can do what it likes to the minority, like kick their asses from here to Saturday and back, as happened to the poor benighted Catholics in Northern Ireland from the 1920s to the 1990s? The Catholics were the minority, so they lost every single election, except the ones which didn't matter. Was that democracy?

I remember a couple of favourite graffiti from the 80s which always appeared at election time -

If voting changed anything they'd abolish it

and

Don't vote, it only encourages them

and

No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in

Ah well, now I must talk about this tiresome book. Hmmph, do I have to?

Well, I wouldn't vote for this book if you paid me. Hah! It's very annoying, you see, written by a hoary old titled buffer of a professor emeritus who drones on in the exact tone which makes so many lectures in universities concentration-free zones : never give 'em a concrete example if a lorryload of abstractions will do.



Had Prof Crick been my lecturer in politics I may well have made farting noises or amusing animal sounds in class, and thrown paper planes while he was looking up another abstract term to bore me with. And I would have made up limericks :

A professor called Bernard Crick
Was possessed of a very large

---------- etc etc

Okay, now a Serious point!

We look back in indignation at previous centuries' definition of democracy as revealed by who was allowed to vote. Which was : persons in possession of a certain amount of land. In the 18th Century in Britain this of course excluded the 9 tenths of the population who were servants and landless peasants. This little book at least allowed me to understand what the thinking was here, which was : the person who was allowed the vote should be of an independent mind, free from corruption. His vote should not be sold to the highest bidder, or enforced by a feudal superior, it should be a free vote. No one should be told who to vote for. Now we would agree with that, wouldn't we - but the 18th century thinking was that if landless peasants or servants got the vote their bosses would just tell them who to vote for, and their vote would (alas) be meaningless, suborned, mere trash. A property on the other hand is taxed - so the property holder you may be sure will vote for the politician who is most likely to not waste the tax money. The property holder will vote for a man of good character, therefore, and will reject corruption and nepotism. Parliament would turn into an ugly oligarchy if everyone was allowed the vote.

Well, I see the logic, which I never did see before. Naturally, people being the grisly fools they are, the logic did not work at all. But it's interesting to see that what appears from our 21st century minds to be a system entrenching the tyranny of the rich was designed to do the opposite.

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

This type of essay will argue that there is no single meaning of democracy since there are many types of democracy, which often have their own opinions about the term's meaning. Such direct democracy can be seen as government by the people. In contrast, representative democracy can see because the government leads the people.

Furthermore, depending on whether someone respects the same political rights will change their description. For example, when a person has a high level of social relevance, they would believe that democracy can be the rule in the elite and political equality does not exist—a point of observation of the Marxists.

On the other hand, however, liberal democracies believe this, and therefore their view of "democracy" is political equality. As Bernard Crick stated 93 inches in democracy is the most promiscuous word in public affairs" (Andrew Heywood), which means that the word democracy can mean anything. The word democracy comes from the Greek expression demo, which means people and kratos meaning power.

Therefore, the classic term for democracy is the regulation of the people. However, that term is too vague, which may be the people of ancient Greece to get involved in politics: you had to be a man over twenty, excluding slaves and foreigners. On contemporary occasions, there is limited political involvement, usually from twenty-one to fifteen to vote. As a result, it shows that not everyone can control their federal government due to the times.

The fact that the vote based on the majority demonstrates that the option represents just almost everyone. Therefore, the people who voted against the majority do not manifest "the cruelty of the majority" (Andrew Heywood, again) clarifies that the term people cannot be everyone who lives in the state, but the vast majority. So, based on how old you are and who you voted for, it will depend on whether you believe the word democracy governed by the people.

The most important point of democracy is the liberal democrat's vision of equal political rights "one person, one vote, one value", this is true. Most traditional Western democratic routines based on voting where everyone gets a vote; indeed, it is the same. In contrast, Marxists believe that this is not the case. The more pattern of the significance of social equality, such as demand for mass communication and financial resources and voting, will likely have its perspective taken into account by the government.

The fact is that George W. Bush had the support of the mass media, like Fox Press, and people in power like Jeb, planned to get him to come to electricity. (George W Bush gained control of the mass media, do not hear the middle voice of voters as Al Gore was most of the best interpreters). Have society, the capacity of organized groups to articulate the government's ability to respond.

In conclusion, the Chinese of democracy used since political promotion "is just a political tool that is designed and produced to cover political intent" (Andrew Heywood, page 2 of political theory). What Andrew meant is just like Bernard Crick because there is no clear definition of democracy. Everything is determined by who is someone or a group that is understanding the word democracy.

If you live in a representative democracy under a totalitarian regime and you are the head of the ruling party, then you would say that it is democratic working in the people's best interests, even though they could be living in the gutter starving. Perhaps if you are the prime minister of Great Britain, although the people indirectly elected you to end up being prime minister, you are not creating a government for the people. You would say you are democratic, in contrast with people who didn't choose you or your plan.

If you are considered a Marxist, your opinion of liberal democracy is that it is false because personal equality would not exist. The elite and corporatists have more power to affect government for them and generally not for the majority. If you are the first-rate, I would say it is democratic because we are in a competitive capitalist environment. Through associations at a glance, we all benefit the economy because we now have the know-how, and most want it. >

Direct democracy is another definition of democracy, stating that citizens must have complete control. However, due to political constraints such as the era and the ability to reject referendums, it cannot fully realize the government by the people.

Source: https://mystudybay.com.br/blog/como-v...

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am dropping this about 60% of the way through - because I have plodded through all the thick mush the author has provided in way of "explanation", and still don't understand what democracy is.

Ok, I know the Greeks started it, and the Romans continued it, and America had a more robust form of it than the British - but the droning on and on about history, without exactly coming to the point, is taking its toll. Mr. Crick, what the hell are you talking about? Where does democracy come in?

Let me look around for some better book which will explain it in words of one syllable for a newbie like me.

PS: This is the first book of this series that I thoroughly detested.

[Kin · Rating 3 out of 5]

สิ้นเปลืองพลังงานมหาศาลมาก ต้อง concentrate ตลอดเวลาเลย คือมันก็ intro ในความหมายที่ว่า ให้ความรู้พื้นฐานเกี่ยวกับคอนเซปต์เรื่องประชาธิปไตยนะ แต่ถามว่าควรเป็นเล่มพื้นฐานสำหรับผู้เริ่มต้นสนใจงานวิชาการไหมก็ตอบยาก มันไม่สนุกและเหนื่อยมาก ไปอ่านอย่างอื่นก่อนแล้วกัน ฮ่า ๆ

[Amin Ghaemi · Rating 5 out of 5]

خواندمش! بالاخره تمامش کردم! بیش از یکسال زمان برد. هر بخش را ده بار یا بیست بار خواندم. فکر میکنم که شاید باید باز هم بیشتر می خواندم. چالش مطالعه ی یک کتاب مروری پالتویی همین است: می توانی در دو یا سه روز ورقش بزنی، یا می توانی مدت درازی در تک تک جمله ها که در حقیقت - اگر کتاب خوبی باشد- عصاره ای از صدها صفحه متن تخصصی است، خیره بمانی و مداوما فکر کنی.
حالا سرانجام، من به یک درک "ابتدایی" و تصویر آغازین از مفاهیم سیاسی دموکراسی، جمهوریت، لیبرالیسم و پوپولیسم رسیده ام. درک کرده که "امر سیاسی" چگونه زمانمند و مکانمند است و اینکه در بستر تاریخی خود تغییر و تحول می یابد.
این تصاویر ابتدایی (!) باید آغازگر زندگی سیاسی من باشد؛ نه از آن جنس عربده های کسالت آور حزبی و هوایی شب انتخابات، بلکه تلاشی که برای درک اصیل دموکراسی در این پهنه ی زمانی و مکانی، انتقال این درک به دیگران، و اگر به صلاح باشد جامه ی عمل پوشاندن به آن. عمر این کار به انتخابات پیش رو قد نخواهد داد. بقیه ی عمرم را به خود اختصاص خواهد داد.
اگرچه ترجمه گاهی نارسا و شتاب زده، یا تحت اللفظی می نمود، اما تلاش مترجم و پانویس های راهگشایشان جای تقدیر دارد.

[Jacob Bews · Rating 2 out of 5]

good intro if u want the most neo-liberal ass review of what democracy is and was. the man argues against the boring "civics" style engagement with democracy and politics more generally, but then proceeds to give an incredibly abstracted and reductive view of democracy which bored me all to hell. And that ON TOP of erasing countless democratic societies and movements from across the globe. The man quotes fucking Hayek and then never quotes Malcolm X or Che. Ridiculous, Imo.

[Kevin Keating · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting insights but there were several times the writing was just too academic. Not a great book (despite its short length) for my students' 26 days of Democracy class. Written from a UK points of view. It was OK/

[An Te · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful little book that espouses a great deal of the developments of democracy, from its roots in Greece and Rome to its standing in today's populist appeal.

There are some clear highlights to this clearly experienced intellectual and politically astute author.

Firstly, I appreciate very much some of his tangential and extended quotations from seminal works of political authors who have come to influence him. They are, I am sure, however, this I cannot know with certitude, whether he is indeed quoting from the critical authors in considering the democratic process; but, in faith, I am alive to his inclination to prize a certain author above another, which itself says much about the man's political and moral allegiance(s). I am endeared to see that due to the very short nature of this extended essay or short book, he has, by no means, skimped on the quality of its content. I delighted when he quoted in length an excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' of which is found below:

'I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavouring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for it the security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.' (BkII: Ch.6)

The dangers of democracy are delicately and summarily listed. In offering authority to a representative, one risks demarcated and removing the very need to inspire living and thought. This passage alone has provided a wealth of insight! I think this need not be so as we remain ever-grateful and vigilant about the boon of the democratic process. When we are aware of this fact that we can fall in abasement and neglect, from such a good structural set-up furnished by the democratic process, we will come to see the trappings of taking its rewards for granted.

Furthermore, I appreciate Crick's handling of the power of people and populism's sway in power dynamics. His analysis is astute. I shall highlight a passage of his:

'The programme Big Brother pretended to be the voice of the people, or the empty mob. Well, we are a democracy, aren't we? Why can't the people have what they want? Even if a kind of democratic dictatorship, or what Tocqueville called the tyranny ofthe majority? No need for knowledge, reasoned discussion, recourse to authorities and experience. That is what populists call elitism. We don't want any of that [,do we?].' But just to point out that the case for populism replacing a construct of society based on good government, representative democracy, and reasoned debate, this would be stronger if those in TV and the tabloids who hide behind public opinion, while seeking to stir it to commercial advantage, really did make serious attempts to ascertain what is - not just veiwing figures, emails, readers' letters, and, of course, an editor's intuition. But professional in-depth public opinion surveys are expensive. Easier and cheaper to send a reporter out to find a colourful and articulate individual.'

And his rhetorical flourishes goes on...

In all, his style is not to my taste as he is a little [too] eclectic and so unclear in his prose. However, these two aforementioned outstanding excerpts are more than worth the effort of trawling through some of his 'more dense' political meanderings and machinations. I guess my mind simply lacks Crick's politically-savvy sentiments. I, for one, am glad that he has provided a very short introduction with great sheen and some good content.

[Caleb Chan · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF. I really tried to like this! I swoon for snooty, highfalutin British academese, with rhetorical flexes and all, and Bernard Crick's style certainly matches up. But Crick also writes with such circumlocutiveness that, as an introduction, his work is inapprorpriate.

I knew it was time to shove the book into my library's RETURN slot when I read the passage below. Here, he's introducing the American War of Independence, which I know zilch about:

The American War of Independence was neither a revolution nor fought for democracy, but it was to have revolutionary and democratic consequences (42).

This starts off well. Nice use of a tweaked parallelism. I'm now primed to expect (1.) what happened in the American War of Independence; (2.) what kind of war it was (since it wasn't a revolution or democracy); and (3.) how the war led to revolutionary and democratic consequences. But then...

The British system of government in the decades before the war made no pretence whatever to be democratic. [A good way to set the scene. Now I'm ready!] There was agitation, very much helped by the example of stirrings in the 13 colonies, for a more equal representation in parliament of what the libertine, demagogue, and reformer John Wilkes called ‘the middling men’. [Wait, what happened in the 13 colonies? What's with the confusing genitive in "parliament of what the libertine..."? Say how this relates to democracy for a noob like me. ] Most of their leaders, himself indeed, regarded themselves [What's the antecedent for "their," "himself," and "themselves"? What's going on?] with varying degrees of sincerity and cynicism, as ‘tribunes of the people’ but not of the people. Generally the reformers were called ‘the patriots’, following the example of those in the American colonies who had protested against royal authority and then were driven to challenge parliament itself. They were patriots because they said that this is our patria, our country, our land which we work with our hands. And the English patriots (to whom, of course, Dr Johnson was referring when he rudely said, probably thinking of ‘Jack’ Wilkes, ‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’) enjoyed the added implication of the term that the king, the court, and the great lords could be derided as too cosmopolitan – German connections and effete French manners. And in this caricature there was an occasional rhetorical whiff of the Norman yoke again. (43)

Perhaps I just don't possess the requisite knowledge for this "Very Short Introduction." Perhaps Usborne's Politics for Beginners is more suited for me (and I mean this genuinely.) But the other Very Short Introduction that I've read—Jonathan Culler's VSI on literary theory—was way better as an introductory work. He started by appealing to a reader's intuitions about interpretation and meaning, and then showed how literary theory responds to these intuitions. As a representative of OUP's putative goal for offering "stimulating ways in to new subjects," Crick's book is inappropriate.

[Abhaga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting little book tracing the development of Democracy, starting from Greeks and Romans to USA and UK, spelling out how democracy as we know today has come to mean a lot more than merely a system of choosing government. What are the inherent tensions between a modern liberal democracy vs a civic republican style of democracy, between the ideas of liberty and rights. It was a good read, elucidated many nuances, made me think and gave me the confidence to dive into larger texts in future.

On the downside, even in the small book it is, ideas felt repetitive at times. I would have liked a very short introduction to go wider, may be say a little more about experiences in other parts of the world. But that is some other book I guess.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly this is a very decent book for a whistle- stop tour into how democracy first developed, and then how it has changed and is now used in the modern day. The essay is well written, and well explained meaning the read is an easy one.
Some chapters (the one about Tocqueville especially) I did find a slog, as it just wasn’t very interesting. Key knowledge, yes. Interesting? No.
3 stars seems a bit tough, but then, it’s an essay. I can’t really say much. It didn’t wow me, but then I found myself not wanting to put the book down at the end so I could finish it, hence I have put it at just above average.

Nice, quick read. Would say that if you want to learn a little bit about a lot, this series is for you.

[Syd Amir · Rating 3 out of 5]

ترجمه عالی بود بخصوص با توضیحاتی که به کتاب اضافه کرده بود و در اخر هرفصل مفاهیم گنگ داخل متن را توضیح میداد
اما خود متن گاهی به شدت مبهم و در هم ریخته بود این شاید به ادعای نویسنده ناشی از پیچیدگی خود مفهوم دموکراسی بود شاید هم سلیقه و نظر نویسنده اما در کل به نظرم میشد ساده تر و زمان مند تر هم نوشت تا مخاطب عام سردرگم نشود

[Philippa St · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having finished it I am not sure I am any the wiser about the nature of democracy and its problems. Crick's writing style is poor and makes reading him laborious but, that aside, what was he talking about?

[Erdenekhuu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Хүмүүс шударга ёсыг баримтлах үед ардчилал биелэх боломжтой хэдий ч хүмүүс шударга бусыг хийх нь олонтаа. Ардчилал болж бүтэж байна гэх хөөргөн сэтгэл дээр бус нухацтай бодлогоширсон үзэл дээр суурилж байх ёстой,..

[M. Ashraf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Democracy
Bernard Crick
Very Short Introduction#75

- The first usage is found in the Greeks,... democracy is simply, in the Greek, demos (the mob, the many) and Kratos, meaning rule... democracy is the rule, or rather the anarchy, of mere opinion... good government was a mixture of elements, the few ruling with the consent of the many.
- The second usage is found in the Roman republic... that good government is mixed government... a state trusted by its people was a stronger state, and a citizen army or militia was more motivated to defend their homeland than hired mercenaries or cautious professionals.
= The third usage is found in the rhetoric and events of the French Revolution and in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Everyone, regardless of education or property, has a right to make his or her will felt in matters of public concern; and indeed the general will or common good is better understood by any well-meaning, simple, unselfish, and natural ordinary person from their own experience and conscience than by the over-educated living amid the artificiality of high society.
- The fourth usage of democracy is found in the American constitution and in many of the new constitutions in Europe in the 19th century and in the new West German and Japanese constitutions following the Second World War, also in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville: that all can participate if they care (and care they should), but they must then mutually respect the equal rights of fellow citizens within a regulatory legal order that defines, protects, and limits those rights.

Aristocracy meant literally the rule of the best, but all too often that degenerated into an oligarchy (rule of the few) or plutocracy (rule of the rich). Democracy meant the rule of many but all too often degenerated into anarchy. A state was infinitely stronger if rulers were trusted by the people if they could carry the people with them by free public debate, and at best they had emerged from the people. But a state needed an educated elite who possessed, not Plato's imagined absolute knowledge, but a kind of practical wisdom that was a mixture of education and experience.

Election to the office was an aristocratic or oligarchical constitutional device because the people would vote either for the best or for the richest and most powerful, while democracy would choose its officers of state by lot. Strange? But a democratic franchise in a modern state rarely avoids the creation of a political elite of officeholders. Elected members are not elected because they are necessarily of the people but more mundanely because they want to be elected and can attend lots of party meetings and social events in the evenings, and even that in some countries is a somewhat ideal picture compared to money and patronage. Perhaps the best that modern democracies can hope for is not the avoidance of political elites but 'the circulation of elites'...

Natural rights of all men are Life, Liberty & State/Pursuit of Happiness...

Monarchy is like a splendid ship, with all sails set it moves majestically on, but then it hits a rock and sinks forever. Democracy is like a raft. It never sinks but, damn it, your feet are always in the water.

... distinguished between 'the people' and 'the mob'. The people seek for effective representation politically, whereas the mob hates society from which it has been excluded.

[Abderrazak Baddou · Rating 2 out of 5]

NOT RECOMMENDED for people who want to know what is democray in simple terms. When you finish you have no idea what was it about. It's a history book rather. The last two chapters (20 pages or so) are about the tenets of democracy but poorly written.

[Sasha Sidorova · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sorry but the writing style makes it hard to read. Couldn’t finish. That’s a shame because the topic is a really good one.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

อ่านค่อนข้างยาก
ต้องมีพื้นฐานมาพอประมาณ

[Tyler Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Democracy: A Very Short Introduction makes a very good overview of a rather complex topic. It does a good job addressing the way that the meaning of the word 'democracy' has evolved over time. Starting with the early forms of democracy in ancient Greece to the modern democracy in Europe and the United States of America. Even forms of government that many would consider to be undemocratic (such as monarchy) are analyzed, looking at the significance of the common people in any form of government.
As Crick notes, "all discussions of democracy are inconclusive and never-ending." Culture always seems to demand slightly different rules and mores to fit the current circumstances. While acknowledging the imperfections that can be found in any democratic system, Crick also shows that one can always take note of the opportunities that democracy provides for societal progress and the continual improvement of the recognition of basic human rights.
Much of recorded human history is covered in this book, and as a result, the reading can feel rather dense at times. Each historical period has to be put into proper context of the existing cultural norms. It can be cognitively strenuous to look at democracy from the mindset of an ancient Greek, switch to the viewpoint of a medieval Frenchman, and then transition to the perspective of a revolutionary colonist in America.
My personal viewpoint of democracy has changed significantly throughout my life, watching the "war on terrorism" unfold in my childhood, then, as an adult, participating in the increasingly contentious political environment of the United States. I have some agreement with Plato's dislike of democracy. I have seen firsthand the dangers of the mob rule (the hive-mind mentality always worries me.) At the same time, I do not see any better alternative to democracy. I don't think it is possible to have a perfect government with imperfect humans, but democracy seems to be the best system available. Democracy: A Very Short Introduction makes this case as well, which I mostly agree with.

[Willibrordus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Demokrasi adalah satu konsep yang akan selalu dipertentangkan. Bagi orang awam hingga yang berkuasa, kata tersebut bermakna akan hal-hal baik yang melindungi atau suatu kekuatan jahat yang mengancam. Apalagi, kata ini ketika bertemu dengan kebebasan (liberty), maknanya semakin jenuh dan menghasilkan corak tersendiri dalam kehidupan sosial & politik.

Bernard Crick berhasil menampilkan perkembangan demokrasi yang bertitik tumpu dari dunia Barat, dari Yunani Kuno hingga awal abad ke-21. Memang, tidak menemukan demokrasi dibahas dalam khazanah pengetahuan Timur walau ia menyinggung India maupun China sedikit mengecewakan. Lagi-lagi, karena sifatnya sebagai buku pengantar, bisa dikatakan ini cukup berbobot karena ia setidaknya dapat menjelaskan perbedaan antara pemerintahan otoriter maupun demokratis dalam kerangka berpikir yang mencerminkan semangat liberal saya rasa.

Banyak istilah kurang umum yang akan memaksa pembaca mencari lebih dalam, dan saya mencurigai bahwa buku ini memaksa kita belajar lebih dahulu tentang demokrasi. Akan tetapi, jangan ragu karena Crick juga sudah memberikan beberapa studi kasus seperti Populisme maupun ekonomi kapitalistik berjalan bersama dengan kehidupan demokrasi. Ide dasarnya sudah di tangan, tetapi bagaimana kita berproses setelah membaca buku ini yang menantang dan saya merekomendasikan bagi pembaca awal untuk menikmati tulisan Crick sambil mencari buku-buku demokrasi lainnya.

[Baylor Heath · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The populist mode of democracy is a politics of arousal more than of reason, but also a politics of diversion from serious concerns that need settling in either a liberal democratic or civic republican manner.”

Hard to tell if this one was inaccessible or just unclear. Most of the VSIs state a definition up front for what something is, but instead, Bernard muses about the difficulty of pinning democracy down like that. "Demokratia, an Athenian minor deity - she is everybody's mistress and yet somehow retains her magic, even when a lover sees that her favors are being, in his light, elicitly shared by many another." I can respect this (heck, its why I came to the book in the first place!) but I would've appreciated a greater attempt.

After this, he races through democracy's roots in Ancient Greece. I felt frustrated by the pace, but I guess I can forgive it provided this is a "very short introduction" and he had a lot of ground to cover.

After Greece, he admittedly loses me for quite awhile and then spends an entire, long chapter on Alexis De Tocqueville. I'd never heard of him, but I suppose his work, Democracy in America was quite important. Important enough to take up an entire chapter in a short book? Not sure.

Bernard regained me when speaking about how certain systems relate to or within a democracy, like meritocracy, autocracy, and populism.

All in all, this VSI just wasn't the most helpful.

[Greg Hovanesian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! What an amazing little book! Despite being only 120 pages long, this book has convinced me that before picking it up, I didn't really actually know what 'Democracy' was. Or perhaps more accurately, that I still don't know what 'Democracy' is, but now at least I understand that I am in the dark in regards to the subject, as are most people who live within 'Democracies.'

A dark cloud of sadness hung over the reading of this book, however, since almost all of the terrifying possibilities brought up by Crick, all of his worst-nightmare scenarios, seem to be happening before our eyes. Democracy is visibly in danger at this moment: when Crick wrote this in 2002 (6 years before his death from prostate cancer in 2008), the dangers were not nearly as visible to the general public as they are now...but they were certainly visible to Sir Bernard Crick. And he ensured that all of his readers knew just how fragile, how threatened, a thing Democracy was and is.

For anyone who cares about the political systems of the world; for anyone who cares about the well-being of human beings everywhere who are being currently threatened by dangerous individuals in power; and for anyone concerned about their current rights as citizens (rights that we may someday lose, or perhaps are already losing), this is essential reading.

[M C · Rating 4 out of 5]

A stimulating short survey of the history and current forms as well as the ideals of liberal democracy. My giving it a four star rating is not indicative of my opinion on democracy in the least, but rather my disagreement with some (not all) of his viewpoints. However his viewpoints are well argued and presented and so make for a good debate and stimulate thought. He ends the book with a call for more civic participation in politics which is well needed amongst our passive and complacent population; also a call for more local, municipal autonomy and democratic government. This book made me realise how little our current governments in the west are adequate to the ideals of liberal democracy and so conscious of the need for further reform, debate and participation (more than just the vote is needed, although the vote itself is certainly needed). One flaw of the book is that he has a rather dismissive and cursory overview of the French revolution, probably embarassed by its violence. Of course I don't agree with political violence. But the French revolution and its ideals were more influential in the history of both liberalism and democracy than he would like to admit; he relies more on the Anglo-American tradition as well as Classical models. This is a small issue in an otherwise stimulating little book so I will give it four stars.

[Maria Mateva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Докато четях тази книга с молив в ръка, исках да подчертая всеки втори ред.

Авторът прави обзор на различните форми на демокрация още от древна Гърция, до ден днешен, като най-голям фокус има може би върху развитието на демокрацията във Великобритания и състоянието ѝ в началните години на историята на САЩ.

Бърнард Крик разглежда различни модели на участие на народа в управлението, различните нива на участието му, както и нужният ценз за това участие. Интересни наблюдения има той върху начини на израждане на демокрацията, например към общество на слабо образована маса, в което властва популизъм.

Препоръчвам тази книга на всеки човек - не бих си представила по-ясно и детайлно развиване на темата за управлението на държава в по-малък обем. Още, определено бих я препоръчала на господата Ердоган и Станишев за разсъждения над тяхната употреба на думата "демокрация". Защото управление на заплашван или пък на подкупван надребно докаран до нищета народ не е точната дефиниция на тази така философска думичка.

[♡ venus ♡ · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very engaging and thought provoking book, perfect for those who are just beginning to dip their toes into the world of politics. While this book may be small, it covers a very diverse range of topics related to democracy, both in a historical context and in a modern sense, and it invites you to think about these topics and how they relate to and affect your life.

The author does a very good job at explaining his ideas in a simple and uncomplicated yet engaging manner.
While I found the final two chapters the most interesting, the rest of the book was also gave me lots to think about. This historical evolution of democracy as a concept was especially interesting to me.

All in all, a good place to start. Enough detail and examples that you understand the points being made, but not so much that you get lost in it. Clear and engaging.

[Sreeram Narasimhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars... This short book (or long article) was more focused on American and British perspectives, apart from the historical Roman context. However, I felt it completely misses the world's largest democracy and the mechanisms here, which of course, is based on British parliamentary system. Also missing are the details on democratic experiments around EU, UN etc.

Where the book shines is in knowing the difference between democracy as it was envisioned as well as the literary meaning of the word and how it is used and misused today to mean multiple things for multiple people. This part was eye opening for me personally.

Now, I am curious to know other books that cover democracy in more detail.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a lot of information packed in what is a relatively short book.

In this short book, the late Bernard Crick a man I've come to learn as having passed away in 2007, lays out the many ways in which Democracy is both everything we think it is and none of it simultaneously.

The book is a bit verbose in many parts. But it shines regardless, especially on topics of recency. Although written in 2002, the chapters on populism and modern democracy may have one thinking they were today.

I'd say it serves far more as an overview of Democracy than a mere introduction to it.

[Simon Dobson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should be required reading for everyone. An exploration of the complexity of what it means for something to be "democratic" – and contrasting this with what it means to be populist, majoritarian, and all the other pretenders for the crown.

[Yusuf Uddin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction

A quick summary that goes over the beginnings of Democracy whilst highlighting its growth both for good and bad into modern times

[Ka-ying · Rating 3 out of 5]

中文翻譯慘不忍睹，難以理解。