Measuring Democracy

I always tend to be on board with scholars who are critical of the common perception on democracy. Much like in weeks past when Schmitter and Karl asked the question “what democracy is not?”, I think it is an important to try and remove yourself from the conventional wisdom and try to analyze democracy from another perspective.

Carbone does this quite well in his piece on the Consequences of Democracy. There is so much work on how amazing democracy is, and how it is going to save the world from the perils of authoritarianism. The table the author puts together is testament to the multitude of theories on the positive effects that democratization has on a society.

There are, however, consequences of democracy that are not entirely positive. Carbone does an excellent job of explaining some of the COD’s that may put the institution of democracy at risk in countries new to the regime type.

He challenges the assumption that the an expanded and all inclusive social welfare state is a direct result of democratization. The idea here is that universal adult suffrage means that everyone, rich, poor, healthy and unhealthy will have their interests represented in government, so the social welfare state will be expanded to cover everyone. But as Carbone contends, in majoritarian regimes, the majority can easily disregard the will of the minority. That is, this type of system creates distinct “winners and losers that ends up marginalizing certain groups”.

So, what is Carbone really getting at? I think he wants people to consider all of the effects of democratization. The more we understand about the topic, the better equipped we will be in participating in our own political arena, just as other  countries in the midst of democratization will better understand how to implement a new democratic regime.