As I churn through these readings one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that democracy is an incredibly difficult concept to define, let alone measure.  We have all been able to identify basic components of democracy, but when it comes time to draft an encompassing definition of the term, there seems to be little unison. Take for instance our readings for this week: all four of them have one common denominator in their definitions of democracy – the expressed need for free and fair elections. Beyond this, the papers seem to loose cohesion, with one paper, Conceptualizing a New Democracy, even claiming it to be impossible to reach a “universally accepted measure of democracy” (248). I think there may be some truth in the assertion; furthermore, even if this assumption is wrong, I am not entirely convinced of the need to get down the nitty-gritty of the concept. Perhaps our only concern should be the very minimalist definition: opportunity for reasonable competition for public office. Beyond this, it is inevitable that varying societies will operate differently. The question I am wondering is to where do we set the benchmark?

This is a convoluted issue for me because, while many see democracy as the antidote to tyranny, I see its essence as the means to tyranny, a tyranny of the majority. This means that at some level, the will of the people must be checked – but when?

In light of this perceived threat of mine, I have a few concerns with Reich’s ranking of democratic regime types. For instance, he provides his own definitions of the terms, democracy and semi-democracy.  By and large I agree with his conceptions, but not thoroughly. For instance, he asserts that a democratic regime cannot exclude any social group from political participation. But what if this social group advocates tyranny? Wont this compromise democracy?

Alternatively, under his definition of semi-democracy he asserts, “some political orientations and interests are unable to organize and express themselves”(7). I agree that this does sound “semi-democratic”, but I also think this recourse is the only check against the degradation of democracy.

Now that I have made my point, I want to go back to my question of where do we set the benchmark of democratic affluence? I have argued why we should not strive for unfettered democracy (in whatever form that may take). So then where does this leave us? Should we all strive for “semi-democracy”? This seems kind of silly, but is still better than the former…