Assignment 3 – Democracy with Adjectives
Participatory Democracy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Participatory+democracy+quiet+revolution/6059122/story.html
This is a very interesting article which meshes well with some of the themes of the Collier and Levitsky article. Essentially it calls into question the efficacy of representative democracy in that representatives no longer has a firm grasp of the will of their constituents. The article frames this with the Occupy movement, claiming that this shows that people want a more active role in the decision making process and are doing so by staging mass, nationwide demonstrations like these. The increase in communication technology, it is argued, makes the full range of participatory democracy much easier to achieve. “The winds of change will blow and strong ideas will emerge from the voices of the people.”
The term being examined is democracy with the prefix “participatory”. This may seem a bit redundant as the existence of democracy presupposes elections, which by nature entails the participation of the electorate by voting. The analytic differentiation the author is trying to make is the difference between democracy through representatives and through direct action. In this sense, the article adds participatory onto democracy to describe a more active role for the electorate. Direct participation through assertive public opinion in the policy making process is what the article is advocating. The Occupy movement, for example, showed participation in the sense of public outcry against poor financial regulation.
The term itself is not a diminished subtype of democracy as the increased level of public input would suggest a more democratic system. Rather it is more of an expanded definition, seeking to differentiate from other types of democracy. Whether this is a different type of democracy or a different degree is up for debate.
Limited Democracy
http://www.livemint.com/2012/01/22212649/India-to-review-economic-secu.html?atype=tp
This article relates to my previous blog post regarding the government in Myanmar. As was previously discussed, the government in that country is attempting to make reforms to liberalize itself and give it a more benevolent image internationally. The regime, however, is still not considered to be a full democracy by western standards as it is missing several key human rights and fair contestation components which seem essential for that definition.
This article deals with the increasing liberalization of the country. In revealing the history of democracy in Myanmar, the article states,
” landmark elections in the nation in November 2010 that ushered in limited democracy”
Limited democracy was an improvement from what was occurring before, yet elections were still being held. While this may satisfy some procedural minimums for that definition, simply the existence of elections, apparently this article believes that even after “landmark elections” which made the system free and fairer, the state of affairs was still “limited” in nature. This is what Collier and Levitsky would call a diminished subtype of democracy, having less than what “democracy” on its own wold entail. The degree of “democraticness” is decidedly lower than other defining prefixes, and this is plainly evident by adding the ‘limited’ modifier. The government of Myanmar is still controlled by the military, yet presidential elections are still held. Perhaps “military democracy” would be an apt definition as it captures the essence of ‘limited’ while giving increased information as to why this is the case.