Democracy can embody a minimalist and maximist definition. From a minimalist perspective democracy can be defined by three terms: 1) contestation, 2) participation, and 3) civil liberties. To expand on these three terms we would get a maximist definition that captures more components of democracy. However, I believe that a minimalist definition is more justifiable as it has a less contested nature. My readings this far for the course have all listed minimalist definitions of democracy that embody contestation/competition, participation/inclusiveness and from time to time civil liberties and freedoms. I do believe the incorporation of civil liberties is pertinent as it addresses matters that fall outside the realm of elections and political matters therefore capturing a more holistic, accurate, valid and reliable score of democracy. Elections are a primary part of democracy, and all the matters pertaining to elections such as corruption, independent judiciary, limited presidential terms, executive recruitment, and suffrage. But economics, ethnic, religious and social matters need to also be accounted for.
Democrazy
Just another UBC Blogs site
Interesting. I would like to hear more about what you think of the economics, religious and social matters. Though I too believe that the central part of any definition has to revolve around the contestation, participation, and civil liberties dimensions, I feel that minimalist definitions, and even some of the extended ones, do not seem to fully capture a more substantive general concept of democracy.
I often wonder what would happen to these definitions if deliberative institutions were put in place of electoral ones. If they failed, never mind, but if they worked well, how would the definitions have to be altered to accommodate that.