The Different Dimensions of Democracy
The term democracy literally means “government of the people.” It refers to political systems where citizens collectively decide which laws and policies their government will pursue, based on information presented by the state and through the medium of elections. Democracy is also commonly understood to imply that each person has an equal say in these decisions, regardless of their economic or social status. These ideas are reflected in the etymology of the word, coined from the Greek words demos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the 5th century bce. Many scholars argue that these defining characteristics are not just desirable but indispensable to the legitimacy of democracy.
Democracy has a variety of benefits, including generating good public outcomes and encouraging civic engagement and participation. It is also a form of governance that most people think makes their lives better. However, people’s assessments of the functioning of democracy vary widely across countries and over time. In the long run, democratic systems must face a series of urgent challenges to maintain their strength and effectiveness.
For one thing, a key reason people have problems with democracy is that they feel their governments are not performing well. Specifically, they believe that election results are often too close to call, that politicians and other elites are corrupt or out of touch, and that the courts do not treat citizens fairly. The extent to which these perceptions are rooted in the underlying structure of democracy is unclear, and this is why it is important to understand how different dimensions of democracy interact.
There is no single measure of democracy that captures all its components, nor is there a consensus on what these are. Consequently, scholars have developed several different methods for measuring democracy. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. The right one depends on what questions are being asked, and what types of countries and years are being considered. Some of the approaches rely on evaluations by country experts to determine whether or not, and to what extent, democracy’s characteristics are present in a given nation. Others rely on researchers’ reviews of academic literature and news reports to assess democracy, while others use a combination of these techniques, as well as representative surveys of regular citizens.
Most of these measures are multidimensional, meaning that they look at various aspects of democracy in turn and combine them into a larger measure. A few are more granular, and focus on particular elements such as freedom of expression or whether citizens have access to the courts.
For example, a recent study by Boix-Miller-Rosato and colleagues found that the dimension whose Cronbach’s alpha was highest was freedom of expression (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83), followed by economic opportunity, and then by the government protecting its citizens from poverty. A factor analysis showed that the latter two factors were related to democracy but not the former, and that citizens’ ability to vote without fear of retaliation was a less important element of democracy than a secret ballot or clear party alternatives.
The term democracy literally means “government of the people.” It refers to political systems where citizens collectively decide which laws and policies their government will pursue, based on information presented by the state and through the medium of elections. Democracy is also commonly understood to imply that each person has an equal say in these decisions, regardless of their economic or social status. These ideas are reflected in the etymology of the word, coined from the Greek words demos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the 5th century bce. Many scholars argue that these defining characteristics are not just desirable but indispensable to the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy has a variety of benefits, including generating good public outcomes and encouraging civic engagement and participation. It is also a form of governance that most people think makes their lives better. However, people’s assessments of the functioning of democracy vary widely across countries and over time. In the long run, democratic systems must face a series of urgent challenges to maintain their strength and effectiveness. For one thing, a key reason people have problems with democracy is that they feel their governments are not performing well. Specifically, they believe that election results are often too close to call, that politicians and other elites are corrupt or out of touch, and that the courts do not treat citizens fairly. The extent to which these perceptions are rooted in the underlying structure of democracy is unclear, and this is why it is important to understand how different dimensions of democracy interact. There is no single measure of democracy that captures all its components, nor is there a consensus on what these are. Consequently, scholars have developed several different methods for measuring democracy. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. The right one depends on what questions are being asked, and what types of countries and years are being considered. Some of the approaches rely on evaluations by country experts to determine whether or not, and to what extent, democracy’s characteristics are present in a given nation. Others rely on researchers’ reviews of academic literature and news reports to assess democracy, while others use a combination of these techniques, as well as representative surveys of regular citizens. Most of these measures are multidimensional, meaning that they look at various aspects of democracy in turn and combine them into a larger measure. A few are more granular, and focus on particular elements such as freedom of expression or whether citizens have access to the courts. For example, a recent study by Boix-Miller-Rosato and colleagues found that the dimension whose Cronbach’s alpha was highest was freedom of expression (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83), followed by economic opportunity, and then by the government protecting its citizens from poverty. A factor analysis showed that the latter two factors were related to democracy but not the former, and that citizens’ ability to vote without fear of retaliation was a less important element of democracy than a secret ballot or clear party alternatives.