The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions

Abstract

care about formal democracy because it tends to be more than merely formal. It tends to be real to some extent. Giving the many a real voice in the formal collective decision-making of a country is the most promising basis for further progress in the distribution of power and other forms of substantive equality.'1 We made this assertion when we introduced the results of a broad-based comparative historical investigation of the roots of democracy in capitalist development. We held that formal democracy was valuable in its own right, but we emphasized that it makes deepening towards more fully participatory democracy and progress towards increasing equality possible. And we argued, further, that the same social and historical conditions that promoted formal democracy-in particular, a shift in the class balance of power in civil society favoring subordinate classes--would also advance the cause of greater social and economic equality. Yet in the current historical conjuncture strides toward introducing and consolidating formal democracy in Latin America and eastern Europe appear to be combined with movements away from more fully participatory democracy and equality. We want to analyze this apparent anomaly in this article. We begin by defining formal, participatory, and social democracy. By formal democracy we mean a political system that combines four features: regular free and fair elections, universal suffrage, accountability of the state's administrative organs to the elected representatives, and effective guarantees for freedom of expression and association as well as protection against arbitrary state action. Indeed, the word democracy is commonly understood in this way when it is used with some conceptual care. Often, however, it is used more loosely. Current political discourse bestows the label frequently on any country that has held an election roughly free of fraud. Even if elections are held with some regularity, it is worthwhile to inquire whether opposition could be expressed and organized without fear and to what extent the state apparatus is in fact accountable to elected officials. If in the past limitations of the suffrage were the most common means to abridge democracy, today restricting the state's accountability and curtailing civil rights are the less easily visible tools of choice.2 Even if all four requirements are met, a country may still be far from equality in the process of making collective decisions. Formal democracy does not entail an