democracy! or democracy?

After, finally, completing this weeks readings, I have to say that I agree with both articles. Self-admittedly my ability to digest academic rhetoric is sub-standard, but, from my understanding it seems the authors raise two important points.

Firstly, for Schmitter and Karl, expanding on Dahl and Shumpeter’s definitions of democracy, suggest that “Democracy does not consist of a single unique set of institutions”(76). Broadly speaking, it can be used to describe diverse cultures and contexts.

Secondly, Collier and Levitsky, seem to argue for the necessity[?] of subcategories in order to better describe the degree of democratization within respective states: this ties into the previous article. Because qualitative measurement of democracy within such a diverse range of states is often difficult, it may prove useful to adopt language that better helps to identify differences.

From my own perspective, one idea that is not addressed (as far as I know) and remains equally important in measuring democracy is the notion of how to measure consistency within emerging democracies. While it is acknowledged that democracy exists as an ideal, in many instances the level of democracy differs within different areas depending on pre-existing economic conditions, political or cultural alliances, ethnicity and proximity to government.