What Democracy Is... And Is Not

Schmitter and Karl's "What Democracy Is...and Is Not" is a collation of the broadest terms and concepts that can be applied to any modern democracy. This article is reminiscent of the “Clash of Civilizations” by Huntington because Schmitter and Karl provide a definition that is much too vague; consequently, different systems are not democratic or not, but rather different types of democracy. Their definition is too general to help distinguish between democracies— which renders ultimately useless because it is meant to encompass all nations that claim this type of government.

The first section of the article describes characteristics (public realm, ruler) that the authors acknowledge to be applicable not only to nominal democracies but to authoritarian and other types of regimes as well. Though they attempt to further pinpoint a concrete definition through their use of elections and citizenship these too could be used in a number of non-democratic systems. In the past, many regimes have grasped on to the concept of elections and granted near universal suffrage but no one would call Mugabe's current rule in Zimbabwe or Panama under Noriega democracies.

However, the authors claim that the determining principles are neither the leader nor the public realm, but rather the focus on the citizens. They believe a country is only democratic to the extent that it has citizens, a concept that supports Isaiah Berlin’s notion of positive and negative liberty. Whether it be “freedom from” or “freedom to” a system is still catering to the citizens and allowing them an optimal status of citizenship (to be able to vote and participate in government with minimal restrictions).

Furthermore, Schmitter and Karl describe elections as one of the determining factors of democracies; however they are much too vague to actually produce a tangible idea. While dismissing the idea of electoralism, the authors instead argue that civil society can be the most vital part to a developed, modern democracy. They say that honest, accessible, and regular elections are the building blocks of democracy, yet they also claim that elections that exclude certain parties and restrict certain portions of the population can also be democratic. Typically, it is believed that the Sandinistas regime in Nicaragua was a Communist takeover, but they too had elections which were biased in all ways to Communist front. By their standards, this can be called a democratic system.

As discussed in lecture, many Americans in particular have developed a tendency to idealize an image of "true" democracy. Schmitter and Karl assert that no such image exists in reality, but rather that there are various forms of democracy that depend on and differ according to socioeconomic conditions, state structures, and policies. I think this part of the essay has much more basis and rationality because it introduces democracy as a conglomerate of processes, and not just an ideology. They discuss how democracies differ and claim that there are subtypes that are in accord with the set principles, yet it seems all too hasty and absurd. If all components of democracy “should be seen as either indicators of this or that type of democracy,” then Schmitter and Karl ought to discuss these types of democracy in order to be more accurate (243). Grouping different regimes under one term when there is no universality in performance makes no sense. This manner of grouping can only lead to more confusion. Most analysis must be done, because as this article stands, a myriad of different systems can claim a democratic model of governance.

Contrary to what many American’s believe to be true – democracies are automatically “the best” at everything they do - especially on the economic front, the contemporary exponential economic growth of the still-authoritarian China comes into question. While Schmitte rand Karl ultimately argue that democracies have a better change for stability than authoritarian regimes, and while there is a debate over China’s path towards democracy, it is necessary for Americans to realize, especially in such dire times, that merely being a democratic state does not guarantee future prosperity.