In one respect, Dahl’s approach is similar in that he ranks a large number of countries from the highest type of democracy to the lowest type of non-democracy. Both Polity and Freedom House place almost all of these democracies in the same category with the highest ranking. But his eighth criterion goes beyond institutional rules to the purpose of decision-making: public policies that are responsive to the voters’ preferences.ĭahl also differs from Polity and Freedom House in making more distinctions among the stable and consolidated democracies.
His first seven criteria have to do with institutional features of democracy like universal suffrage, universal eligibility for public office, free elections, and freedom of expression and association-similar to the criteria used by Polity and Freedom House.
Dahl’s eight criteria for defining and measuring democracy in his seminal book Polyarchy (1971). This neglect is surprising because the most basic definition of democracy is not only government by the people but also, as stated famously by President Abraham Lincoln, for the people-that is, in accordance with the people’s preferences and serving their interests. But, as Ringen correctly points out, the measurement of democratic quality in terms of the purpose of democracy has been neglected. In addition to the Polity project (now Polity IV), the annual ratings by Freedom House deserve to be mentioned. Great strides have been made in the measurement of democracy as a decision-making system. Stein Ringen’s article is a most welcome contribution to the comparative analysis of democracy.
0 kommentar(er)
