Regarding the relationship between representative and constitutional democracy many scholars have noted that these two forms of democracy share many common elements but are two distinct concepts: representative democracy (or "polyarchy
") is defined as "public contestation and the right to participate", (3) that is free and open elections, freedom of speech and the press, the right to freely form and join civic or political organizations and the existence of "institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preferences".
They consider whether directly deliberative polyarchy
is a suitable democracy model for European social policy, the free movement of people and the European Court of Justice, pension policies recommendations of the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the national policies in Norway and Britain, and what role international governmental organizations might play in global health policy.
I do so in the 200 page 2004 book on which he bases his polemic and which itself contains 14 tables and charts and a wealth of other empirical data that Cammack views as "snippets." I also do so, among other places he does not cite, in my two major empirical studies, my 2003 Transnational Conflicts, and my 2008 Latin America and Global Capitalism, which together comprise 800 pages of empirical and historical research, or my 1996 Promoting Polyarchy
, which comprises 400 pages.
Dahl's approaches the study of American politics from a "polyarchy
" perspective, whereas Dye and Zeigler view it from an "elite" perspective.
is more accurately called polyarchy
." He defines "polyarchy
" as "a system in which a small group actually rules, and participation in decision-making by the majority is confined to choosing among competing elites in tightly controlled electoral processes." Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott described the realpolitik reasoning behind the shift from supporting authoritarianism to promoting polyarchy
this way: "democracies are more likely to be reliable partners in trade and diplomacy and more likely to pursue foreign and defense policies that are compatible with American interests."
By establishing four ideal-types of political systems-competitive oligarchies, closed hegemonies, inclusive hegemonies, and polyarchy-Dahl enumerates the necessary attributes for a political system to become a polyarchy
: freedom to form and join organizations, freedom of expression, the right to vote, eligibility for public office, the right to run as a candidate, alternative sources of information, free and fair elections, and institutions for ensuring responsiveness of citizens (Dahl 1971, 3).
Dahl has argued that polyarchy
is unlikely to be achieved at the global level and that international organizations should be understood and treated as bureaucratic bargaining systems rather than as democratic institutions.
This was a complex reality, articulated in a myriad of political, economic, and cultural experiences, conditioned pluralistically by civil and political conflicts, which resulted in a polyarchy
dictated by the actions of individuals and of the community more or less grand, more or less influential, but nonetheless determined to define the future political, economic, and cultural order of the old Continent.
There is a box on Robert Dahl's theories of democracy and polyarchy
(in which the distinction between the two remains ambiguous), and a section on feminism.
Hierarchy has been defined as a system where "only a few individuals (or only one individual) can undertake projects, while others provide support in decision making", as opposed to a polyarchy
Although I later will revert to the more conventional word, I propose now to shift from "democracy" to another term, "polyarchy
," coined by Robert A.