My main point is that the creation of a free public time implies the creation of a democratic collective inspired by the project of social ecology. The first and second parts of this article focus on the modern social phenomena correlated to the general crisis and the emergence of the Internet Age (Castells, 2012). The third and fourth parts focus on new significations that seem to inspire modern social movements and the challenges that modern democratic ecological collectivities face. I use (...) the term “social ecology” as defined by Murray Bookchin: “Social ecology is based on the conviction that nearly all of our present ecological problems originate in deep-seated social problems” (Bookchin, 2006, p. 19). And I use the term “democracy” exclusively in the original, true meaning, of direct democracy where society is self-governed by the equal participation of every individual to political decisions and functions, as opposed to a modern representative democracy or republic, where political decisions rest in the hands of an oligarchy. In this sense, a truly democratic political collectivity is a truly ecological collectivity and vice versa. (shrink)

Direct democracy is not a populist goal.—Nadia Urbinati, Me the People, 2019The Swiss republic is the world’s preeminent practitioner of direct democracy.—John G. Matsusaka, Let the People Rule, 20...

Direct-democratic processes have won popular support but fall far short of the standards of deliberative democracy. Initiative and referendum processes furnish citizens with insufficient information about policy problems, inadequate choices among policy solutions, flawed criteria for choosing among such solutions, and few opportunities for reflection on those choices prior to decision making. We suggest a way to make direct democracy more deliberative by grafting randomly selected citizen assemblies onto existing institutions and practices. After reviewing the problems (...) that beset modern direct-democratic elections and the long history of randomly selected citizen assemblies, we propose five different varieties of randomly constituted citizen bodies—Priority Conferences, Design Panels, Citizens’ Assemblies, Citizens’ Initiative Reviews, and Policy Juries. After selecting members through stratified random sampling of citizens, each of these assemblies would operate at a different stage of the legislative process, from initial problem identification through approval of a finished ballot measure. Highly structured procedures guided by professional moderators and featuring expert testimony on policy and legal matters would help to ensure deliberative quality, and careful institutional designs would make each body politically powerful. In the end, these citizen bodies would be likely to address the deliberative deficit of direct democracy and better achieve the public’s desired policy objectives. (shrink)

Does direct democracy enhance political efficacy? This article examines the effect of direct democracy on political efficacy. Normative theorists have suggested that direct democracy has educative effects on citizens, such as promoting political efficacy. While a number of studies have examined the corresponding hypothesis, their empirical findings are not clear-cut. This study attributes the inconsistent results to two problems of the existing studies: the employment of cross-sectional data and the heterogeneity of popular vote issues. (...) This study closes this gap by examining the effect of direct democracy in local politics on political efficacy in a more systematic and controlled way. More concretely, it utilizes the Japanese case: In the first decade of this century, more than 400 Japanese municipalities held a popular vote for the first time because the Japanese national government promoted municipal merger. Therefore, the Japanese case provides multiple popular votes on comparable substantive topics that can be conceived as an homogeneous treatment. By applying multilevel modeling to panel survey data, this study demonstrates the causal effect that the popular vote increases the level of internal political efficacy. (shrink)

El presente artículo explora los retos políticos que plantea la democracia directa. En el pensamiento político de Locke la democracia representativa consiste en el compromiso de mantener la estructura económica de laisser-faire, mientras que la democracia directa rousseauniana que demanda homogeneidad acaba por no ser muy democrática. La cuestión en juego es si puede haber un régimen político capaz de acoger tanto una participación inclusiva como la diversidad existente de los participantes. Se presentan dos respuestas diferentes a esta pregunta a (...) través de las obras de Jean-Luc Nancy y Jacques Rancière. (shrink)

The following article is an excerpt from Professor Gerhard Ritter's contribution to a Symposium on the origins and methods of National Socialism. This Symposium, whose publication in English translation is forthcoming, was organised under the auspices of the International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. The International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies has assured complete freedom of expression to all participants while obviously not endorsing any of the opinions expressed in the Symposium.In presenting the material of this Symposium the (...) publishers wish to make it clear that the opinions expressed are those of the authors themselves and do not represent the policy of Intercultural Publications or the views of its personnel. (shrink)

We study the optimality of direct democracy under incomplete information, in a setting where society must choose between two policies under one of two possible scenarios. Voters are of four types: leftist, rightist, selfish, and altruistic. While leftist and rightist voters are predetermined in their choice, selfish and altruistic voters form the undecided group. In our setting, incomplete information arises from two sources: the realized scenario and the composition of society. While existing literature typically considers only the first (...) three types of voters, we show that introducing altruistic voters alters the effect of available information on the optimality of direct democracy, both under complete and incomplete information. Under complete information, this disruption breaks the alignment between optimal policies and scenarios that exists in the absence of altruistic voters. Under incomplete information, this misalignment becomes more pronounced. When only selfish voters are present, the policy chosen under direct democracy depends solely on the realized scenario and aligns with the optimal policy whenever voters are well-informed. However, with altruistic voters, a second source of informational distortion emerges—the composition of voter types—and altruistic voters can either facilitate or hinder optimal decisions, even when voters are well-informed. Crucially, even well-informed undecided voters may fail to select the optimal policy, as outcomes depend on the internal composition of this group. (shrink)

We develop a novel argument scheme tailored to debates surrounding public votes on a state action. It can be used to propose reasons for voting “yes” or “no” and allows for natural reconstructions of such debates. These reconstructions are of particular use to voters trying to weigh the pros and cons of the proposed state action. The scheme for proposing reasons helps answering two questions: What changes will the proposed state action bring with it? And are these changes good or (...) not? Using the scheme, we derive a three-layered structure of public debates surrounding votes that aides in constructing systematic and comprehensive overviews. The scheme for proposing reasons also lends itself to concise summaries for voter information and can be incorporated into more general deliberation dialogues. (shrink)

The crisis situation caused by pandemic COVID-19 and the effects of the war between Russia and Ukraine are also affecting the functioning of the European Union. From time to time, voices are raised questioning the existence of democratic legitimacy in the European Union. It is therefore important to examine how the concept of EU citizenship relates to the concept of right to vote, in particular, direct democracy. The institutions of direct democracy, and in particular, referendums, are (...) the most general and most powerful form of direct exercise of power, since they enable the people themselves to decide on a matter directly. When looking at the system in the EU Member States, it is worth examining the issue of referendums at national and local level, in particular the importance of the concept of EU citizenship in determining the voters who participate in the referendum. In this context, it could be asked as a preliminary question whether it would be possible to introduce an EU referendum in which EU citizens could decide on an issue falling within the EU’s competence, or whether, similarly, a cross-border regional referendum could be envisaged in which EU citizens living in several countries could decide on a regional issue affecting several countries. It is also necessary, however, to examine an institution that is already in operation: the past, present and future of the European Citizens’ Initiative, with a view to whether it could become a kind of European referendum in the future. (shrink)

Activists often utilize ballot measures to protect wildlife. However, state executive branches may employ a variety of means to subvert direct democracy. We examine some of these tactics via a case study of two nearly identical ballot initiatives that were intended to outlaw the aerial killing of wolves in Alaska. In the first case, the language that appeared on the ballot was created by an executive branch sympathetic to the measure. In the second case, the ballot language was (...) created by an executive branch opposed to the measure. In the first case, the ballot language accurately communicated the intent of the initiative and it passed. In the second case, it did not communicate the intent of the initiative or pass. Moreover, in the second case, the Palin administration utilized public funds to persuade voters not to support the initiative. (shrink)

The biggest contemporary challenge to democratic legitimacy gravitates around the crisis of democratic representation.

The biggest contemporary challenge to democratic legitimacy gravitates around the crisis of democratic representation.

Engaging citizens with digital technology to co-create data, information and knowledge has widely become an important strategy for informing the policy response to COVID-19 and the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation in cyberspace. This move towards digital citizen participation aligns well with the United Nations’ agenda to encourage the use of digital tools to enable data-driven, direct democracy. From data capture to information generation, and knowledge co-creation, every stage of the data lifecycle bears important considerations to inform policy and practice. (...) Drawing on evidence of participatory policy and practice during COVID-19, we outline a framework for citizen ‘e-participation’ in knowledge co-creation across every stage of the policy cycle. We explore how coupling the generation of information with that of social capital can provide opportunities to collectively build trust in institutions, accelerate recovery and facilitate the ‘e-society’. We outline the key aspects of realising this vision of data-driven direct democracy by discussing several examples. Sustaining participatory knowledge co-creation beyond COVID-19 requires that local organisations and institutions incorporate adaptive learning mechanisms into their operational and governance structures, their integrated service models, as well as employing emerging social innovations. (shrink)

This article argues that obligatory, simultaneous, and simple Treaty ratification by referenda is the next step in the consolidation of the political core of European citizenship. In the first part, general remarks about the special nature of EU citizenship highlight the relevance of referenda on EU Treaties for EU citizenship. In the second part, the normative and empirical case in favour of direct democracy is put forward. It is followed by the assessment of direct democracy in (...) European integration as we have known it so far. The practice is irreversible and gaining in momentum. But it is in need of substantial reform due to procedural dysfunctions and discriminatory consequences for the citizens. Section V relates this result to a legal analysis of EU citizenship. The suppression of the discriminatory consequences of the Treaty ratification procedure is necessary from a legal point of view, but it cannot be expected from the 'judicial incrementalism' that has characterised the development of EU citizenship regarding free movement and residence. In section VI, the conclusions of the previous sections are drawn into the final proposal of obligatory, simultaneous and simple Treaty reform by referenda in all Member States. At the end, five counter-arguments to the proposal are discussed. (shrink)

Many futurists, technologists, and democratic theorists have asserted the Internet and modern information technology are enabling the realization of an authentic direct democracy, or at least a more participatory democracy. Conversely, critics contend advances in technology are only automating the existing democracy. This article explores the potential of modern information technology to enable the emergence of a more participatory democratic system. In particular, the key foundations of modern direct democracy are analyzed with respect to (...) promising technological developments. (shrink)

"Open Democracy envisions what true government by mass leadership could look like."—Nathan Heller, New Yorker How a new model of democracy that opens up power to ordinary citizens could strengthen inclusiveness, responsiveness, and accountability in modern societies To the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was (...) reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people—with the right suit, accent, wealth, and connections—are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the lost openness of ancient democracies, Open Democracy presents a new paradigm of democracy in which power is genuinely accessible to ordinary citizens. Hélène Landemore favors the ideal of “representing and being represented in turn” over direct-democracy approaches. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, Landemore recommends centering political institutions around the “open mini-public”—a large, jury-like body of randomly selected citizens gathered to define laws and policies for the polity, in connection with the larger public. She also defends five institutional principles as the foundations of an open democracy: participatory rights, deliberation, the majoritarian principle, democratic representation, and transparency. Open Democracy demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, today more than ever, urgently needed. (shrink)

In the film, Please Vote for Me (2007), director Weijun Chen illustrates how leadership ambitions allowed ‘undemocratic’ means of competition during a democratic election among primary school children. Parents encouraged and teachers allowed unscrupulous competition among preselected eight-year-old candidates. The competition led to classmates being manipulated and disappointed and a ‘dictatorship’ similar to that of previous years. This film shows that a ‘democratic election’ in a primary school in Wuhan was guided by native Chinese values of ‘good leadership’ in reformed (...) China. However, the newly introduced discussions on democratic leadership could also be seen as initial steps towards reflection on democracy. The documentary has won prestigious international awards, including the Sterling Feature Award (2007) and the Adolf Grimme Award (2008). (shrink)

What is disintermediation? In wider terms, it indicates the absence of a median entity between two subjects. As is known, it was a term born in the economic-financial sector, which then spread to different areas of social life. This variety of uses has made it ambiguous, an ambiguity that can develop on two levels. The first is almost inevitable because it is the consequence of its varied use. By disintermediation we can mean, for example, the absence of mediators during an (...) economic negotiation, the possibility of buying a plane ticket without travel agency costs, or the dynamic that is created between society and institutions with the use of Internet in the political arena. From this point of view, the word is ambiguous because it is overly generic. The second level of ambiguity relates to the relationship between disintermediation and democracy because, on the one hand, it allows us to accept the requests of citizens who want a more direct and transparent relationship with the political elites, and, on the other, it risks making some elements of representative government even more brittle, especially by undermining their legitimacy. As the title suggests, this book explores this second level of disintermediation ambiguity, offering a series of contributions that, using different approaches, highlight also the more dangerous aspects that risk even undermining some keystones of liberal-representative democracy"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This book, along with its companion volume, Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the People, relates the democratic potential of the latest electronic technologies to the idea of direct-participatory democracy. Having clarified the original meaning of the idea of democracy, this volume proceeds to develop a new theory of democracy, "Direct-Deliberative e-Democracy.".

Representative democracy is often assessed from the standpoint of direct democracy. Recently, however, many theorists have come to argue that representation forms a democratic model in its own right. The most powerful claim in this direction is to be found within two quite different strands of thinking: the aesthetic theory of Frank Ankersmit and the savage theory of Claude Lefort. In this article, I show that while Ankersmit and Lefort converge in their critique of direct rule, (...) they provide us with two distinct models of democracy. Aesthetic democracy, I argue, in the end falls short as a democratic recuperation of representation. It reduces representation to delegation. Savage democracy proves more fruitful in this respect. It offers a representative view of politics without committing itself to the premises associated with political delegation. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

What did democracy mean before liberalism? What are the consequences for our lives today? Combining history with political theory, this book restores the core meaning of democracy as collective and limited self-government by citizens. That, rather than majority tyranny, is what democracy meant in ancient Athens, before liberalism. Participatory self-government is the basis of political practice in 'Demopolis', a hypothetical modern state powerfully imagined by award-winning historian and political scientist Josiah Ober. Demopolis' residents aim to establish a (...) secure, prosperous, and non-tyrannical community, where citizens govern as a collective, both directly and through representatives, and willingly assume the costs of self-government because doing so benefits them, both as a group and individually. Basic democracy, as exemplified in real Athens and imagined Demopolis, can provide a stable foundation for a liberal state. It also offers a possible way forward for religious societies seeking a realistic alternative to autocracy. (shrink)

The quest for real democracy is one of the components of sustainable degrowth. But the incipient debate on democracy and degrowth suffers from general defi-nitions and limited connections to political philosophy and democracy theory. This article offers a critical review of democracy theory within the degrowth literature, taking as its focal point a relevant debate between Serge Latouche and Takis Fotopoulos. We argue that the core of their contention can be traced back to the relationship between (...) the concepts of democracy and autonomy as defined by philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis, which both authors and generally the degrowth movement consider as one of their theoretical reference points. We show how both Latouche and Fotopoulos hold a misconception of Castoriadis’ notions of autonomy, the social imaginary and politics, which in turn limits their cognisance of democracy and hence confuses their debate concerning the possibilities for a degrowth transition within the confines of a liberal parliamentary democracy. With a clarified theoretical understanding of the interconnected democracy-autonomy assemble, we proceed to an evaluation of the revolutionary potential of the degrowth movement and to a better understanding of a possible relationship between democracy and degrowth. (shrink)

It is usually held that representative government is not strictly democratic, since it does not allow the people themselves to directly make decisions. But here, taking as her guide Thomas Paine’s subversive view that “Athens, by representation, would have surpassed her own democracy,” Nadia Urbinati challenges this accepted wisdom, arguing that political representation deserves to be regarded as a fully legitimate mode of democratic decision making—and not just a pragmatic second choice when direct democracy is not possible. (...) As Urbinati shows, the idea that representation is incompatible with democracy stems from our modern concept of sovereignty, which identifies politics with a decision maker’s direct physical presence and the immediate act of the will. She goes on to contend that a democratic theory of representation can and should go beyond these identifications. Political representation, she demonstrates, is ultimately grounded in a continuum of influence and power created by political judgment, as well as the way presence through ideas and speech links society with representative institutions. Deftly integrating the ideas of such thinkers as Rousseau, Kant, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, Paine, and the Marquis de Condorcet with her own, Urbinati constructs a thought-provoking alternative vision of democracy. (shrink)

Negri celebrates a conception of democracy in which the concrete powers of individual humans are not alienated away, but rather are added together: this is a democracy of the multitude. But how can the multitude act without alienating anyone’s power? To answer this difficulty, Negri explicitly appeals to Spinoza. Nonetheless, in this paper, I argue that Spinoza’s philosophy does not support Negri’s project. I argue that the Spinozist multitude avoids internal hierarchy through the mediation of political institutions and (...) not in spite of them; nor do these institutions merely emanate from the multitude as it is, but rather they structure, restrain and channel its passions. In particular, the required institutions are not those of a simple direct democracy. There may be other non-Spinozist arguments on which Negri can ground his theory, but he cannot legitimately defend his conception of the democratic multitude by appeal to Spinoza. (shrink)

What, if anything, is problematic about the involvement of celebrities in democratic politics? While a number of theorists have criticized celebrity involvement in politics (Meyer 2002; Mills 1957; Postman 1987) none so far have examined this issue using the tools of social epistemology, the study of the effects of social interactions, practices and institutions on knowledge and belief acquisition. This paper will draw on these resources to investigate the issue of celebrity involvement in politics, specifically as this involvement relates to (...) democratic theory and its implications for democratic practice. We will argue that an important and underexplored form of power, which we will call epistemic power, can explain one important way in which celebrity involvement in politics is problematic. This is because unchecked uses and unwarranted allocations of epistemic power, which celebrities tend to enjoy, threaten the legitimacy of existing democracies and raise important questions regarding core commitments of deliberative, epistemic, and plebiscitary models of democratic theory. We will finish by suggesting directions that democratic theorists could pursue when attempting to address some of these problems. (shrink)

It has been argued that environmental decision-making can be improved be introducing citizen panels. The authors argue that citizen panels and other models of citizen participation should only be used as a consulting forum in exceptional cases at the local level, not as a real decision-making procedure. But many problems in the field of environmental policy need nonlocal, at least regional or national, regulation due to the fact that they are of national impor-tance. The authors argue that there are good (...) reasons not to institutionalise national citizen panels. They advocate the view that more reasonable and more competent solutions can be found by introducing forms of direct democracy. (shrink)

Popular debates about AI and democracy rest on misconceptions about both democracy and AI. Theodore Lechterman, an ascendant thinker in the philosophy and governance of AI, dismantles these misconceptions and shows how to rethink democracy for an algorithmic age. Recoding Democracy reveals that democratizing AI is not about widening product access or granting stakeholder input on Big Tech's terms. It requires that those subjected to AI systems enjoy fair opportunities for ongoing and deliberative public oversight. The (...) book rejects fantasies of AI-powered direct democracy and makes the case for representative democracy selectively reinforced by AI. It shows how the possibility of rule by intelligent machines threatens democracy's philosophical foundations and charts a path for strengthening them. Most boldly, the book defends the possibility of AI citizenship and grapples with the resulting questions of political justice between human and artificial citizens. Daring in its questions but sober in its claims, Recoding Democracy is essential reading for engaged citizens as well as students and scholars in philosophy, politics, law, and technology. (shrink)

The book analyzes the sources of widespread dissatisfaction with democracies around the world and identifies directions for feasible reforms"--Provided by publisher.

This article proposes a new model of bicameral sortition democracy that rethinks the division of labor between elected and randomly selected bodies. Existing bicameral proposals either give sortition chambers weak or co-equal authority, limiting their ability to realize the epistemic promise of deliberative democracy. By contrast, I propose a model in which an elected chamber sets the legislative agenda and oversees deliberative fairness, while a sortition chamber holds exclusive authority to deliberate and decide policy. This design preserves the (...) communicative and authorization functions of elections, while securing the epistemic advantages of cognitively diverse citizen deliberation. I evaluate this model against three alternatives, pure sortition, co-equal bicameralism, and subordinate sortition bicameralism, along four normative dimensions: resistance to elite capture, representation and inclusion, epistemic quality, and legitimacy and accountability. I argue that only a model that empowers citizens in their ‘post-learning’ capacity, while grounding decisions in a democratically visible and contestable process, can deliver a political system that is both legitimate and epistemically robust. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that instituting a form of economic democracy (ED) may offer a partial remedy to the ongoing ecological crisis. My argument proceeds in three steps. First, I contend that the ecological crisis largely stems from an under-responsiveness of current political and economic institutions to the interests of voiceless beings—in particular, future generations and non-human beings. Second, I draw on theoretical and empirical considerations, such as ED’s deliberative structure and adverse optimization pressures under capitalism, to argue (...) that ED is likely to be more responsive to voiceless interests than capitalism. Furthermore, ED is also more amenable to responsiveness-increasing reforms that directly represent voiceless interests in economic decision-making processes. Third, I explore whether this gives us reasons to subscribe to some forms of ED over others. Models of ED with a broad scope of democratic decision-making and an inclusive demos, I argue, are best suited to protecting the voiceless. Overall, the article provides some pro tanto reasons favoring ED based on its relative responsiveness to voiceless interests. This supplements common defenses of ED that appeal to non-domination, meaningful work, and the firm-state analogy. (shrink)

Standard representative democracy is criticised on democratic grounds and the case is made for an alternative system of democratic governance. The paper discusses ways in which representative democracy falls short of the democratic ideal of self-governance. Referendum and initiative are examined as mechanisms that further self-governance, but are argued not to go far enough. Direct democracy is considered as an alternative to representative democracy, but the case is made that even on democratic grounds direct (...) democracy is unnecessarily demanding. It is argued that this is also the case with regard to Budge’s proposal for direct democratic governance, which retains a place for representation and for political parties. Real-time democracy is defended as a superior alternative. In real-time democracy, a voter’s vote is attached to an elected representative’s weighed parliamentary vote. The voter, however, is able to withdraw that vote and vote independently of her representative in parliamentary votes. (shrink)

Constitutional reform has been an important means to push populist authoritarian agendas in Hungary, Poland, Turkey and Venezuela. The embrace of constitutional means and rhetoric in pursuit of these agendas has led to the growing recognition of ‘populist constitutionalism’ as a contemporary political phenomenon. In all four examples mentioned above, democracy, popular sovereignty and direct plebiscitary appeal to the people is the rhetorical and justificatory framework for constitutional reform. This, I worry, gives democracy a bad name and (...) reinforces the widespread suspicion that citizens should not be directly involved in constitutional reform as popular participation can lead to dangerous majoritarianism and is easily manipulated by elite actors seeking to weaken constitutional checks and balances. But the problem, I argue, is not inherent in citizen’s participation in constitutional reform. In contrast to populist constitutionalism, I develop an idea of deliberative constitutionalism in which citizens can participate in constitution-making and reform without hijacking constitutionalism for majoritarian, nationalist or anti-pluralist ends. Deliberative constitutionalism as I understand it has four features: a Habermasian co-originality thesis that articulates the interdependence of democracy and liberalism mediated by a conception of discourse; a proceduralized idea of popular sovereignty that reduces the tension between appeal to the people and respect for pluralism; the centrality of the public sphere over the voting booth as the cradle of democracy; institutional innovations intended to include citizens in constitutional reform (including through referendums) but avoid majoritarian and populist pathologies. (shrink)

Regional integration over the past decade has facilitated a huge flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into Latin America. Less is known, however, about why these newforeign enterprises decided to enter specific markets. This study investigates three recent investments in Costa Rica: two by U.S.-based multinational corporations (MNCs) and another by an MNC based in Spain. The behavior of these MNCs is examined in their initial bargaining and subsequent operations. Through the lens of political economy, this study concludes that (...) Costa Rica’s stable democratic institutions and formalized economic links through multilateral and regional trade and investment accords constitute an advanced factor of comparative advantage that attracted foreign investment to Costa Rica and induced the MNCs to become responsive to host country interests. (shrink)

The Dispersion of Power is an urgent call to rethink centuries of conventional wisdom about what democracy is, why it matters, and how to make it better. Drawing from history, social science, psychology, and critical theory, it explains why elections do not and cannot realize the classic ideal of popular rule, and why prevailing strategies of democratic reform often make things worse. Instead, Bagg argues, we should see democracy as a way of protecting public power from capture—an alternative (...) vision that is at once more realistic and more inspiring. Despite their many shortcomings, real-world elections do prevent the most extreme forms of tyranny, and are therefore indispensable. In dealing with the vast inequalities that remain, however, we cannot rely on standard solutions such as electoral reform, direct democracy, deliberation, and participatory governance. Instead, Bagg shows, protecting and enriching democracy requires addressing underlying inequalities of power directly. In part, this entails substantive policies attacking the advantages of wealthy elites. Even more crucially, deepening democracy requires the organization of oppositional, countervailing power among ordinary people. Neither task is easy, but historical precedents exist in both cases—and if democracy is to survive contemporary crises, leaders and citizens alike must find ways to revive and reinvent these essential democratic practices for the twenty-first century. (shrink)