The philosopher Karl Popper had ample reason to propose a precise definition of democracy. Democracy, he said, is a means to remove those in power without bloodshed. Popper's preferred method, of course, was the ballot box.
Popper's definition avoids theological disputes about the "rule of the people," and whether such a thing can actually exist. It also spares us the attempt to stick all kinds of possibly desirable objectives into the definition, like equality in social as well as technical terms, a general theory of the actual process of "democratisation," or even a set of civic virtues of participation.
But Popper's definition of democracy does not help when it comes to a question that has become topical in many parts of the world: what if those removed from power believe in democracy, whereas those who replace them do not? What in other words, if the "wrong" people are elected?
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
After years in the political wilderness, the UK Labour Party is now far ahead in opinion polls, with sensible plans for improving the country's economic performance. But to translate promises into results, any future government will have to do something about the elephant in the room: chronic under-investment.
explains what it will take for any political party to restore hope in the country's long-term economic future.
For the US, Slovakia's general election may produce another unreliable allied government. But instead of turning a blind eye to such allies, as President Joe Biden has been doing with Poland, or confronting them with an uncompromising stance, the US should spearhead efforts to help mend flawed democracies.
reflect on the outcome of Slovakia's general election in the run-up to Poland's decisive vote.
The philosopher Karl Popper had ample reason to propose a precise definition of democracy. Democracy, he said, is a means to remove those in power without bloodshed. Popper's preferred method, of course, was the ballot box.
Popper's definition avoids theological disputes about the "rule of the people," and whether such a thing can actually exist. It also spares us the attempt to stick all kinds of possibly desirable objectives into the definition, like equality in social as well as technical terms, a general theory of the actual process of "democratisation," or even a set of civic virtues of participation.
But Popper's definition of democracy does not help when it comes to a question that has become topical in many parts of the world: what if those removed from power believe in democracy, whereas those who replace them do not? What in other words, if the "wrong" people are elected?
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Subscribe
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
Already have an account? Log in