After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society

by Robert A. Dahl

In this book, one of the world's most distinguished political scientists discusses the problems, strengths, and weaknesses of democracy as a method of decision making for modern governments. Robert A. Dahl examines the principles on which the authority of democratic government rests, the question of who "the people" should be in the concept of "rule by the people," and the kinds of democracy that fit different situations. In a new chapter Dahl acknowledges the importance of market-oriented economies to democratic institutions but advises newly democratic governments to adopt a system in which unregulated markets are modified by a certain amount of governmental intervention.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy

168 pages, Paperback

Published November 28, 1990

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

[Matthijs · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve always liked democracy, and like many others blessed to grow up in one, that is largely due to the democratic gratitude that is spoon fed from a young age. Oh how blessed we are to have representation and think of all these poor people who never get to vote on anything.

On the other hand the widening cracks in the system make it hard to defend it just because. It’s easy to point out where democracy in practise doesn’t work, and to dream up an alternative that would work (in theory). In walks doubt whether the democracy is worth all the reverence…

In a few rich essays Robert A. Dahl manages to create an overview of democracy and its practical challenges that had me literally cheering when the puzzle pieces fell into place. He explains and defends why the system can be muddy and wobbly, but might still be the best there is.

He coins polyarchy as an idea that sits between the ideal theoretical democracy and the challenges of getting it into practise and explains why equality is one of the essentials for an effective and fair polyarchy. He does much more: this book is dense.

I can try to repeat his reasoning here, but I wouldn’t do it justice. The biggest feat of the book is to cover so much ground in so few pages. And of course to make a strong case for democracy not based on its outcomes, but on normative grounds. In this he succeeds greatly. My democratic flame is rekindled.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dahl is a wonderfully careful and precise thinker. I only wish he would liven up his prose with more actual examples from history to illustrate his points. My eyes glazed over at certain points, but he asks some great questions.

For the most part, he seeks to demonstrate that society requires multiple levels of authority and multiple criteria for decision making and apportioning resources. A market economy is generally good for democracy, but we don't want the market to decide everything, like who gets a kidney transplant. Democracy values personal choice, but individuals inevitably must cede some authority to the community, i.e. kids have to go school, you can't smoke in hospitals, etc. We also need to give experts authority in certain areas.

Ultimately, what he calls polyarchy, or representative democracy, is for him the best path, but that path also creates problems that are almost impossible for these governments to solve, such as the almost inevitable remoteness of government from everyday citizens. We have to accept the problems along with the benefits, because 'solutions' to these issues will probably create greater problems, i.e. French and Russian revolutions, etc.

[Will · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was horrible.

This felt so annoying and out dated. Maybe because the book was originally written in 1970, 51 years before I am now reading it. But the arguments that he makes for democracy are the same argument I remember hearing in school and made by every old person that acts like it was the greatest idea man has ever come up with. Maybe these were revolutionary thoughts for its time but outdated, at best, today. It was even annoying reading his thoughts on cons of democracy because it felt like he would start to just address one and then that was it. He would just walk away all together. Like he didn't want you to analyze it too long.

The only reason I give this 2 stars instead of one is that it does show a possible foundation or elude to where a foundation may come from for so many pro-democracy and pro-socialism advocates today. It may be a bread crumb along the trail but this can be useful.

[Michael David · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are different types of democracy, and each of them have specific advantages and disadvantages. However, despite their disadvantages, combinations of them work (imperfectly, at that), in order to effect change in society. In small groups, primary democracy might work, but it's too time-consuming for a large collection of people like a city. Representative democracy might not be so representative, but it is economical and still follows enough people's personal choices that most of the basic rights are respected, if not all.

Democracy is a tenuous balance that Dahl doesn't provide solutions for. However, in contrast to autocracy, it's a good enough alternative.

[Sam Snideman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felt like giving this little book a whirl in the wake of the recent events in Egypt and Tunisia (and, based on some news accounts and pundit-based speculation, other countries in the Middle East).

[Jody · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fundamental