12 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy world of democratic concerns has opened up. Democracy definitions are going way beyond the electoral posts. Illustrative of this dynamic search for more substantive conceptions of democracy is the proliferated alternative meanings of democracy. Heywood (2007: 72ff), author of a textbook in political science widely used in the Philippines and a specialist in political theory, lists eight of the currently most common alternative meanings of democracy. The proffered definitions are clearly not mutually exclusive of one another; if anything, nearly all relate primarily to a popular mode of democratic governance, liberal democracy, as Heywood himself later notes. The eight are: Ÿ A system of rule by the poor and disadvantaged Ÿ A form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ continuously without the need for professional politicians or public officials A society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and privilege A system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities A system of decision-making based on the principle of majority rule A system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks upon the power of the majority A means of filling public offices through a competitive struggle for the popular vote A system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their participation in political life The expansion of democratic space in democracy studies has not facilitated a greater consensus among scholars regarding the nature of their subject. A particularly pungent critique relating to this ongoing confusion regarding the concept of democracy is in a theoretical volume published over 50 years ago (Mayo, 1960). Its author notes that confusion results when technical people whom he explicitly identifies as mostly political scientists fail to develop a shared or controlling definition of democracy. Ruing this condition, he remarks that "[a]lthough there are in the political studies, a number of technical words with fixed meanings, unfortunately, 'democracy' is not one of them (Mayo 1960: 22-24)." For him, more confusion results when numerous groups load the term with "special and personal meanings"; the ideologues and the religiously-inspired bear the brunt of his criticism that "public discussions of democracy is almost a complete Babel, [with] much of the writing [being] inspirational in character, generating vague feelings of uplift about nothing in particular." Almost as great a responsibility for the general confusion may also be attributed to people who speak of democracy as if it had some "metaphysical essence or quintessence behind the word," this time it is the nominalism of Plato and similar idealists that he faults. (Mayo 1960: 22-24)