Case Studies of Democracy

Robert Dahl suggests the two ideological foundations for democracy are “contestation” and “participation”. I agree with this minimalistic definition of democracy and believe in particular in the United States notions of true democracy are clouded by western ideals and standards. While the United States may be considered by many as a bastion of democracy as it has endured and evolved so much in a short period using it as the standard is deeply flawed. Notions of American governance with a bipartisan system, a three branched government, a strong executive leader, and various other political structures as the foundations of democracy corrupts the true definition of democracy and therefore makes it impossible to compare whether one country is more democratic than another. In broader terms democracy is a highly evolved political system with a simplistic core in which the entire adult populous participates on some level in which competing ideals are considered and chosen by the will of the populous. Therefore the crucial components are competition and the opportunity to engage in an open political forum. This system is so evolved because it allows for societies to adapt overtime to new and emerging ideas and standards.

Democracy while so simplistic in its definition is paradoxically very complex and allows for society to be extremely dynamic. Democracy is not some idealistic notion of equality but rather a rational and procedural system of organization that allows for the open exchange of ideas and continued molding of society based upon them. Democracy has no bounds meaning the political future is uncertain. Thus I believe it’s definition too should not be bound to strict terms but rather a bare minimum one in which a universal exchange of ideas is established in which societies with different structures and morals can develop a highly adaptive political dialogue what we call democracy. Therefore quantifying democracy isn’t possible and while freedom house does have a great deal of merit and validity the idea of putting a number to how democratic a country is challenges its very core and minimizes into something entirely different. Democracy is ever changing and can be entirely different for one society then another there should never be a standard or set of benchmarks. Democracy is but a word for a much deeper yet simple concept in which open political dialogue and exchange become a reality.

If you examine the United States and another commonly considered highly democratic nation such as the Sweden I think it greatly brings to light this argument that democracies cannot be quantified and subjected to a rating as freedom house suggests. Admittedly I understand the goal freedom house has in setting minimum standards and subjecting countries to them as an assessment of democracy however I think it more speaks to freedom