UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works

Home , Arend Lijphart

Title Democratic Quality in Stable Democracies

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pf33273

Journal Society, 48(1)

ISSN 1936-4725

Author Lijphart, Arend

Publication Date 2011-02-01

DOI 10.1007/s12115-010-9389-0

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Soc (2011) 48:17–18 DOI 10.1007/s12115-010-9389-0

SYMPOSIUM: MEASURING DEMOCRACY

Democratic Quality in Stable Democracies

Arend Lijphart

Published online: 24 November 2010 # The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract The major predecessor to Ringen’s and my own people’s preferences and serving their interests. It is also efforts to measure democratic quality in terms of the purpose implied in Robert A. Dahl’s eight criteria for defining and of democracy is Robert Dahl’s seminal book Polyarchy measuring democracy in his seminal book Polyarchy (1971). Measuring the quality of democracy requires two (1971). His first seven criteria have to do with institutional prior judgments: (1) making sure that, in terms of institu- features of democracy like universal suffrage, universal tional characteristics, a country is sufficiently democratic, eligibility for public office, free elections, and freedom of and that, as a minimum, it has universal suffrage, and (2) that expression and association—similar to the criteria used by its democracy has been uninterrupted for a minimum number Polity and Freedom House. But his eighth criterion goes of years. To an important extent, higher democratic quality beyond institutional rules to the purpose of decision- can be attributed to institutional characteristics of consensus making: public policies that are responsive to the voters’ democracy, especially proportional representation. preferences. Dahl also differs from Polity and Freedom House in Keywords Democratic quality. Robert Dahl . Stable making more distinctions among the stable and consolidat- democracy. Consensus democracy. Proportional ed democracies. Both Polity and Freedom House place representation almost all of these democracies in the same category with the highest ranking. In one respect, Dahl’s approach is similar in that he ranks a large number of countries from the Stein Ringen’s article is a most welcome contribution to the highest type of democracy to the lowest type of non- comparative analysis of democracy. Great strides have been democracy. But there are three contrasts. First, Dahl made in the measurement of democracy as a decision- explicitly uses his crucial eighth criterion to rank his making system. In addition to the Polity project (now Polity countries. Second, he uses a more differentiated scale with IV), the annual ratings by Freedom House deserve to be thirty-one categories. Third, and most important, at the mentioned. But, as Ringen correctly points out, the democratic end of the scale he sees clear differences of measurement of democratic quality in terms of the purpose quality among thirty-two stable democracies, ranging from of democracy has been neglected. high of 1 to a low of 9. In effect, this is a separate nine- This neglect is surprising because the most basic point scale indicating different degrees of quality among definition of democracy is not only government by the established democratic systems. To give a few examples, as people but also, as stated famously by President Abraham of 1969, the highest ranking is given to Belgium, the Lincoln, for the people—that is, in accordance with the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden; Canada, Japan, and New Zealand are in the middle; and Colombia and A. Lijphart (*) Venezuela are at the bottom. Department of Political Science, 0521, University of California, Ringen credits me with doing the “pioneering work”— San Diego, praise that I appreciate, but I think that Dahl must be 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0521, USA regarded as the major predecessor to both of us. I should e-mail: [email protected] also mention that, although I did show qualitative differ- 18 Soc (2011) 48:17–18 ences among the thirty-six stable democracies in my the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Scholars Patterns of Democracy (1999), I did not attempt to often commit the same error. I must confess to have been construct an index similar to Dahl’s or Ringen’s nine- rather lenient, and perhaps too lenient, in this respect when point scales. Instead, I used Dahl’s index, in addition to I treated Switzerland, Australia, and the United States as several other indicators of democratic quality (like women’s stable democracies from 1945 on, although women in pre- rights, socio-economic equality, and satisfaction with 1971 Switzerland, Aboriginees in pre-1962 Australia, and democracy) to demonstrate significant differences between many blacks in pre-1965 America did not have the right to majoritarian and consensus democracies. If I prepare an vote. updated edition of Patterns of Democracy, I cannot use I am not sure where exactly the minimum threshold for Dahl’s index any longer because by now it is more than institutional democracy should be drawn. My main argu- 40 years old. Fortunately, Ringen’s index will be an ment is that there must be such a minimum, below which a excellent up-to-date replacement. country does not qualify as a democracy, and that it does I would like to add two points to Ringen’s argument. not make sense to discuss the quality of democracy in First, it is significant that all of the countries ranked by countries whose institutions and rules are not sufficiently Ringen according to their degree of democratic quality are democratic. stable democracies. This choice, I believe, is not an My second point, much more briefly, is that institutional arbitrary one. Measuring the quality of democracy is the democracy is not only a prerequisite for judging democratic third step in a three-step judgment. We have to begin by quality, but that institutions and quality are related to each establishing (1) that the countries we are interested in are other. Majoritarian and consensus democracy, both defined sufficiently democratic in terms of regime and institutional in institutional terms, exhibit different degrees of demo- characteristics to justify being called democracies, and (2) cratic quality. The most important institution of consensus that their democracy is firmly established. For the latter democracy responsible for delivering this higher democratic requirement, I used a nineteen-year criterion in Patterns of quality for the people—in particular, better women’s Democracy, that is, uninterrupted democracy for at least representation in government and higher voter turnout in 19 years. (My initial rule was based on 20 years—a elections—is proportional representation (PR). Significant- preferable round number—but I did not want to exclude ly, the five countries in the top three of Ringen’s nine India, the world’s largest democracy.) Shorter or longer categories of relative democratic quality—the Netherlands, periods can also be defended, although, in my opinion, New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—all have PR anything shorter than 15 years is questionable. As of 2010, elections. PR is therefore both a strong influence for all of the countries ranked by Ringen, except Mexico, democratic quality and can itself be regarded as qualita- satisfy the twenty-year criterion. tively superior to majoritarian elections. For the first step of judging the degree of institutional democracy, I am at least partly sympathetic to the view of Polity that democracy is a matter of degree and that there is Open Access a continuous scale from the worst autocracy at one end to This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which per- the best democracy at the other. I also strongly believe, mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any however, that we need to establish a threshold below which medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. a country cannot be regarded as democratic. For instance, an essential condition for democracy—a necessary, although obviously not sufficient condition—is universal suffrage. This basic fact is often disregarded, for instance, Arend Lijphart is Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science at when in his 1993 inaugural address, President Bill Clinton the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of Electoral “ ’ ” Systems and Party Systems (Oxford University Press, 1994) and called the United States the world s oldest democracy, Patterns of Democracy (Yale University Press, 1999). His most recent although universal suffrage was not firmly established until book is Thinking About Democracy (Routledge, 2008).