Conceptualizing and Measuring Modern Democracy
13
analyzing ideologically vulnerable, purposive ends like "freedom," they offer
modied, procedurally-oriented typologies, e.g. the majoritarian and
consensus democracies of Lijphart (1984), to explore democracy and its main
variations, or at least sound a stronger caveat to taking the popular usage of the
term as a sufciently clear denition.
One can't help but wonder why this divide between the proceduralists and
the substantivists camps has persisted to current times. There could be a deeper
philosophical/methodological divide between those who consider democracy
as a method or procedure of governance and those who would insist on its
substantive, purpose-oriented content as a primary concern. The debate on the
conceptual content and direction of democratic rule can perhaps be recast into
the traditional disjunction between fact and value that persists among most
social scientists. Procedural fact and valued outcomes relating to democratic
polities often divide democracies' energetic explorers. Those emphasizing the
method of rule, the procedures and processes of governance, argue that
involving democracy scholars in futile debates regarding its alleged sourceauthority and nal ends wind up with no more than ideological contentions;
those favoring the substantive outcomes of democratic rule allege that focusing
overly much on method does not make enough demands on what democracy
and democratic governance ought to bring about.
The debate may not be a real one as both method and ends obviously could
simultaneously inhere in the concept of democracy and democratic
governance. The main obstacle to a more productive, synergistic probe into
democratic theory and empirical democratic governance appears to be the
uncompromising demands of the procedurally inclined scholars to come up
with demonstrably pragmatic, useful studies. As Huntington curtly points out
in criticizing those who would worry about values of political freedom in their
democratic studies, "Fuzzy norms do not yield useful analysis." (Huntington,
1993:9).
Many remain wary about minimalist democracy studies using elections as
their most critical variable. Some expressed doubts about the "economicism" –
the use of primarily economic analytical tools and subject focuses -- of their
democracy studies and found themselves going back to their "philosophical,
legal and moral theory" studies to anchor their probes into then emerging
democracies. (O'Donnell, 2000) Decades earlier, another theorist had poetically
pointed out that even as the procedural or methodic concerns of democracy
should not be ignored, democracy nevertheless has its principles and core
values.
"Within the limits of these, democracy recognizes the legitimacy of
whatever ideals or fundamental beliefs – different and even conicting –
that the citizens may cherish. It is a political system and a theory in
which men may freely pursue their dreams and purposes, and try to
convert them into reality through politics. Lacking the certainties of a