27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science

1/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
Democrac, Qualit
In recent decades, discontent, dissatisfaction, and alienation have been growing political phenomena in old,
established democracies. At the same time, more and more countries have been defined as democratic.
Democratization has also brought about a large number of so-called hybrid regimes. From these three different
perspectives, the same question emerges: What is the quality of democracy in any specific country, and what
does this tell us in terms of (a) how actual and deep the satisfaction or dissatisfaction is, (b) what is behind
democratic appearances, and (c) how ambiguous cases can be turned into democracies by improving their
quality? This entry focuses on the notion of quality, its key dimensions or qualities, and the mechanism of
quality subversion as a key aspect to explore when dealing with this topic.
What Is Quality?
There are at least three main streams of literature dealing with this topic. A first group of scholars have been
working on democratizations, consolidation, and crisis and in their analyses of democracy have also pointed
out aspects related, directly or indirectly, to the topic. Among them are Guillermo O'Donnell with his notion of
delegative democracy, Arend Lijphart with his thesis on the superiority of consensual democracy vis--vis
majoritarian democracies in terms of implementing democratic quality, and David Altman and Anbal Perez-Lian
who refer to three aspects that draw on Robert Dahl's concept of polyarchy (civil rights, participation, and
competition). The second group of scholars focused on established democracies, especially those belonging to
the Anglo-Saxon traditionthat is, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Among them, David Beetham
(see especially David Beetham, Sarah Bracking, Iain Kearton, & Stuart Weir, 2002) developed an analysis in
terms of auditthat is, a systematic assessment of institutional performance against agreed criteria and
standards. The auditing procedure should follow four steps:
1. Identify appropriate criteria for assessment.
2. Determine standards of good or best practice that provide a benchmark for the assessment.
3. Assemble the relevant evidence from both formal rules and informal practices.
4. Review the evidence in the light of the audit criteria and defined standards to reach a systematic
assessment.
A number of authors followed Beetham by implementing his framework in other countries, such as Canada and
Australia (see, e.g., Marian Sawer, Norman Abjorensen, & Phil Larkin, 2009; see also Todd Landman, 2006).
The third stream is formed by a number of data banks, such as those of Polity IV, Freedom House, the
Economist Intelligence Unit, World Bank, and also the Bertelsmann Index, which provide measures of aspects
related to democratic performance and, more generally, to the quality of democracy. The different data banks
are massive efforts to provide scores and rank orders of a large number of countries or, in some cases (first
and foremost Freedom House), of all existing independent countries on key aspects such as rule of law and
freedom.
Thus, phenomena such as democratization processes and political science research paved the way for the
development of a more systematic theoretical analysis of the quality of democracy, where a key point is
spelling out a clear notion of quality. A survey of the use of the term in the industrial and marketing sectors
suggests three different meanings of quality:
1. Quality is defined by the established procedural aspects associated with each product; a quality product
is the result of an exact, controlled process carried out according to precise, recurring methods and timing;
here the emphasis is on the procedure.
2. Quality is defined by the structural characteristics of a product, be it the design, materials, or functioning
of the good or other details that it features; here, the emphasis is on the content.
3. The quality of a product or service is indirectly derived from the satisfaction expressed by the customers,
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
2/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
by their repeated requests for the same product or service, regardless of how it is produced or what the
actual contents are or how the consumers go about acquiring the product or service; according to such a
meaning, the quality is simply based on result.
The three different notions of quality are grounded in procedures, contents, or results. Each has different
implications for empirical research. Importantly, even with all the adjustments demanded by the complexity of
the object under examinationdemocracyit is still necessary to keep these conceptualizations of quality in
mind as definitions and models of democratic quality/ies are elaborated. The next questions, then, are What is
a quality democracy? and, more precisely, What are the procedural, content, and result qualities of a
democracy?
Good Democracy
A quality democracy or a good democracy presents a stable institutional structure that realizes the liberty
and equality of citizens through the legitimate and correct functioning of its institutions and mechanismsthat
is, a good democracy is first and foremost a broadly legitimated regime that completely satisfies citizens
(quality in terms of result); one in which the citizens, associations, and communities of which it is composed
enjoy liberty and equality, even in different forms and degrees (quality in terms of content); and one in which
the citizens themselves have the power to check and evaluate whether the government pursues the
objectives of liberty and equality according to the rule of law (quality in terms of procedure).
Alternative normative definitions of democracy could be recalled, such as liberal democracy, responsive
democracy, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, associative democracy, egalitarian or social
democracy, and good governance. However, regardless of what normative definition of democracy is
accepted, empirical analysis tends to reveal the same specific features.
What Qualities?
Eight possible dimensions or qualities on which a good democracy might vary are at the core of the empirical
analysis to cover the normative notions of democracy mentioned above. The first five are procedural
dimensions. Though also relevant to the contents, these dimensions mainly concern the rules. The first
procedural quality is the rule of law. The second and third procedural qualities regard the two forms of
accountability (electoral and interinstitutional). The fourth and fifth are the classic participation and
competition, which, however, have a special theoretical status (see below). The sixth and seventh dimensions
are substantive in nature and deal with quality as defined in terms of content: The sixth is full respect for
rights that are expanded through the achievement of a range of freedoms. The seventh is the progressive
implementation of greater political, social, and economic equality. The final, eighth, dimension concerns the
responsiveness or correspondence of the system to the desires of the citizens and civil society in general, and
this is quality defined in terms of results. Some essential considerations about these dimensions have still to be
added.
The institutions and mechanisms of representative democracies are actually the main objects of the empirical
analysis of democratic qualities. This is not to ignore the direct democracy as the highest expression of
democratic quality but to acknowledge the centuries-long empirical experience of representative democracies.
If the analysis is to focus on representative democracies, then accountabilitya core feature in the
representative democracybecomes a truly central dimension insomuch as it grants citizens and civil society
in general an effective means of control over political institutions. This feature attenuates the difficulties that
exist objectively when there is a shift from direct to representative democracy.
The principal actors of such a democracy are the citizen-individuals, the territorial communities, and the
various forms of associations with common values, traditions, or aims. In this sense, the possibility for good
democracy exists not only in the case of a defined territory with a specific population controlled by state
institutions under a democratic government but also for wider ranging entities. The main point is that the
above-named subjects are at the heart of a democracy in which the most important processes are those that
work from the bottom up, and not vice versa. In this way, the transfer of the analytical dimensions from the
national level to the supranational levelthough not uncomplicated and without difficultyis possible.
It is particularly important to point out the specific empirical aspects to explore for each of the eight qualities.
They are briefly summed up here.
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
3/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
Qualit in Terms of Procedure
Rule of Law
If the rule of law is at stake, the relevant elements to examine are
1. individual security and civil order, with a focus on right to life, freedom from fear and torture, personal
security, and right to own property guaranteed and protected through the country;
2. an independent judiciary and a modern justice system, focused on mechanisms establishing an independent,
professional, and efficient judiciary system that allows equal access to justice, free of the undue pressures
and enforcement of decisions;
3. institutional and administrative capacity to formulate, implement, and enforce the law, where the focus is
on the governance system (parliament and government), the capability to ensure the production of quality
legislation and the implementation through the country of a transparent policy-making process allowing for the
participation of civil society, and the presence of a professional, neutral, accountable, and efficient state
bureaucracy;
4. effective fight against corruption, illegality, and abuse of power by state agencies, where the focus is on
the existence and implementation of the comprehensive legislative framework to prevent and fight the
corruption; and
5. security forces that are respectful of citizen rights and are under civilian control; the focus is on the
mechanisms of civilian control over security forces as well as on efficient, noncorrupted, disciplined police
forces respectful of human and political rights.
Electoral Accountabilit
If the quality to analyze is electoral accountability, the best strategy for detecting it empirically is to refer to
its most immediate conditions:
1. free, fair, and recurrent elections, with their specific procedural aspects;
2. plural and independent information;
3. freedom of the party organization and related aspects; and
4. the presence and stability of alternatives.
Interinstitutional Accountabilit
If the quality to analyze is interinstitutional accountability, the main subdimensions and indicators to explore
refer to
1. legislativeexecutive relations, with special focus on the parliamentary opposition or the role of the
legislative body;
2. constitutional courts;
3. ombudsmen;
4. audit courts; and
5. modes and extent of decentralization.
Political Participation
If political participation has to be considered, one should look at
1. identifying participation, to become a part, to revive, or to restate the belonging or identification with a
group of a different sort and
2. instrumental participation, to try to achieve some goal.
So the basic forms in the case of conventional participation are referendum, electoral participation at the
country and local levels, and membership and other forms of affiliation in political organizations and interest
associations. In the case of nonconventional participation, the basic forms are strikes, demonstrations, and
riots; there are other forms involving participation, in addition to forms of participation with regard to specific
policies.
Political Competition
The basic salient subdimensions of political competition are the following:
1. competition among political and societal actors, characterized by freedom for all political parties to compete
with each other and by fairness of political competition;
2. competition within political and societal actors; and
3. the output side of political competition.
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
4/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
Qualit in Terms of Content
Freedom
The three main subdimensions of freedom are the following:
1. personal dignity,
2. civil rights, and
3. political rights.
For all of them, there is the existence of opportunity in the legal system of the country and the actual
guarantee of each.
Equalit
The guarantee and effective implementation of social, economic, and cultural rights helps reduce differences in
those domains. In addition, when considering equality, other basic aspects to analyze include the following:
1. the allocation of economic resources within the population,
2. the extent of poverty,
3. the diffusion of education,
4. the existence of gender discrimination, and
5. the existence of ethnic discrimination.
Qualit in Terms of Result
Responsiveness
Responsiveness refers to the legitimacy of governmentthat is, the citizens' perception of responsiveness. In
other words, the empirical aspects to consider should be the diffusion of attitudes favorable to the existing
democratic institutions and the approval of their activities because of the assumption that attitudes of
satisfaction show the effective perception by civil society of existing responsiveness. On this quality, limited
resources and economic constraints on public spending affect the responsiveness of even the wealthiest
countries. Likewise, the persistent problems posed by unemployment and immigration are also illustrative of the
near impossibility of finding generally satisfactory, legitimate, and responsive solutions in contemporary
democracies. Indeed, the situation is more and more characterized by discontent, dissatisfaction, fear of
poverty, and general democratic malaise.
Recurrent Patterns of Subversion
A different, meaningful perspective on the analysis of qualities, above all a more realistic one, is to look at all
the recurrent ways in which elites and citizens consciously or otherwise try to subvert those qualities for their
political or private purposes. Here the eight qualities with their possible and often probable subversions are
reviewed.
Rule of Law
Starting with the rule of law, first and foremost, a rigorous application of laws or, in certain cases, the
relationships with an only apparently efficient bureaucracy can have particularly negative consequences for
the most socially weak and vulnerable members of society. Then, there is the possible use of the law as a
genuine political weapon. Here, one can see a persistent and diffuse temptation for politicians to use the law
against their adversaries if, for example, the opposition is condemned to remain as such for a long time and
has no chance of electoral victory in the near future. Politicians are also tempted to use judicial acts to
reinforce their own position against the opposition. In other cases, when there is collusion among politicians,
the judges themselves, with the support of the media, are tempted to turn to the judiciary in retaliation for
certain political decisions that they consider unacceptable. On a different level, there is also a growing
tendency among individual citizens or economic groups to resort to the law to assert their own interests.
Some scholars note this phenomenon as a juridification of contemporary democracy. Finally, and not
altogether different, there is the popular and diffuse cultural attitude that interprets the law as a severe
impediment to realizing one's own interests that should be circumvented in any way possible. This attitude,
which is common in various countries throughout the world from Southern Europe to Latin America, Eastern
Europe, and also Asian democratic countries, extends from the popular to the entrepreneurial classes.
Accountabilit
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
5/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
With respect to electoral accountability, given the well-known opacity of political processes and the
complexity of reality, politicians have ample opportunity to manipulate their contexts in such a way as to
absolve themselves of any concrete responsibility. Accountability frequently becomes a catchphrase more
connected to the image of a politician than to any decisions he or she may have taken or results he or she
might have produced. Negative outcomes are easily justified by making reference to unforeseen events or by
taking advantage of a favorable press to influence public opinion. At the same time, good results, obtained
sometimes at the cost of sacrifices by the governed, might result in negative or punitive judgments for the
governor at the time of the next elections. Thus, when a politician supports something that is unpopular but
necessary for the welfare of the state, he may lose the support of the electorate. The very action, often
ideological and instrumental, of parties or other components of the political opposition or even of media actors
in a position to conduct public processes can, sometimes on inconsistent grounds, make the effective
implementation of electoral accountability more difficult. The lack of clear distinctions between incumbent
leaders and party leadersthe head of government often also controls the partiesmeans that parties, be
they of the opposition or of the majority, are hindered in carrying out their role as watchdogs for their
constituents. At the parliamentary level, party discipline is considered more important than accountability
toward the electors and, in practice, the parliamentary majority supports the government without controlling
it. Furthermore, there should also be a clear distinction between the responsible leader, either of the
government or of the opposition, and the intermediate layers of party actors that range from militants to
sympathizers. These latter should trigger a bottom-up process that gives direction to how parties should
control the government or organize their opposition. However, recent empirical studies on party organization in
a number of advanced democracies indicate an opposite trend, which is characterized by strong party leaders
who act in collusion (instead of in competition) with other parties or party leaders. The most extreme scenario
relating to this phenomenon is that parties, supported by public financing, effectively form cartels where the
political opposition is actually disappeared.
Citizens in European countries encounter further difficulties in ensuring electoral accountability because of the
existence of the supranational dimension created by the European Union (EU). The most fitting example of how
governments in these countries avoid accountability is the well-known tactic of blame shifting. Here, the
political responsibility for every unpopular decision taken by the government is shifted from the national to the
European level, even if they concern clear-cut issues such as streamlining national administrations or
reorganizing state finances to meet large national deficits. Governments or national politicians justify actions
resulting in widespread public opposition by claiming that their hands were forced by opposing coalitions in the
Council of Ministers of the EU or in the European Council of prime ministers and chiefs of state or by votes in
the European Parliament.
As Jos Maravall (1997) has discussed, there are many ways by which government leaders can avoid electoral
accountability. At the same time, the absence or extreme weakness of interinstitutional accountability leaves
electoral accountability as the only instrument for guaranteeing this dimension of quality democracy. The
chances of exercising electoral accountability, however, are only periodic, and in some cases citizens must
wait several years before the next elections. As O'Donnell (1994) notes, the result is that we obtain a
delegative democracya democracy of poor quality in which the citizen casts his or her vote and is
subsequently ignored until the next election. Citizens are left without any means of controlling corruption and
bad government, and there are no other institutions really capable of guaranteeing interinstitutional
accountability.
Participation
Participation can be subverted and constrained in a variety of subtle and overt ways in democracies around
the world. Citizen dissatisfaction, passivity, indifference, and alienation are key reasons for the consequent
sharp decline of voting and other forms of citizen participation. But the subversion of the meaning and
consequence of participation can be seen when it is no longer spontaneous, voluntary, and free but instead
comes to be influenced and even shaped by a different sort of elites. A key role in this can be played by
television and other mass media. The so-called audience democracy is the main context of such
pseudoparticipation. In fact, within a highly personalized politics where communication elites are very
important and the political debate is transferred from institutional arenas to public opinion, effective
participation has almost no room. Moreover, there are attempts to secure a controlled participation that may
just take the form of obedient support for government actions. That is, there is an effort to get people to
participate but only with behaviors that support the incumbent authorities. Other forms of participation are
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
6/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
discouraged, and this is not difficult in social and political contexts with a poor tradition of active, autonomous
civil society. Participation compounded by various forms of violence is also a subverted way of taking part in
politics. As suggested by Dahl some years ago (and, more recently, in 1998), a key, necessary, definitional
element of democracy is a firm commitment to the peaceful solution of conflicts. Consequently, the use of
violent means twists and distorts the very working of every democracy.
Competition
There are also a few recurrent patterns of subverting competition. The first one is the attempt to exclude
competition in some area where the effective working of competition is supposed to have relevant
consequences, for example, by making a pact between two parties participating in an election or by agreeing
to exclude a priori a political actor, person, or group from fair participation in an election. Second, a distortion
of competition can be the end result of inadequate implementation of rules regulating electoral campaigns and
financial support for parties. A third, recurrent way of distorting the competition is in obfuscating the program
and/or policy differences among parties or party coalitions. Collusive pacts between government and
opposition may also be formed. Especially in hybrid regimes, competition can be seriously subverted if leaders
and parties are able to arbitrarily control the implementation of rules, especially the electoral ones, or are able
to constrain pluralism of information. Finally, use of violence is another way of subverting the competition
among political actors.
Freedom, Equalit, and Responsiveness
Without going into details, freedom and equality are subverted when they are merely formally acknowledged as
rights but not put into practice. The failure to allocate the funding needed for implementation of these rights is
one common barrier to their realization. Responsiveness can also be subverted when citizens are not
adequately informed about the impact of political actions, as such information is at the root of the formation
of responsiveness perceptions.
Empirical research on the varieties of ways the dimensions or qualities can be subverted can also make it
possible to detect the democracies with lesser or without qualities and even to understand from a different
perspective how and why problems of delegitimation and eventually related problems of consolidation can
emerge in the scrutinized country.
Leonardo Morlino

Further Readings
Altman, G. A. and Perez-Lian, A. Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness and
participation in eighteen Latin American countries. Democratization, vol. 7, p. 85100. (2002).
Beetham, D., Bracking, S., Kearton, I., & Weir, S. (2002). The IDEA handbook on democracy assessment. The
Hague, Netherlands: IDEA/Kluwer Law International.
Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Diamond, L., ed. , & Morlino, L. (eds.). (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Landman, T. (2006). Studying human rights. London: Routledge.
Lijphart, A. P. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Maravall, J. A. (1997). Surviving accountability (Jean Monnet Chair Paper No. RSC 97/46). Florence, Italy:
European University Institute.
Morlino, L. (2009). Qualities of democracy: How to analyze them (Studies in Public Policies No. 465).
Aberdeen, UK: University of Aberdeen.
O'Donnell, G. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, vol. 5 (1), p. 5569. (1994).
27/03/12 Democac, Qali : Inenaional Encclopedia of Poliical Science
7/7 age-eefeence.com/ie/inlpoliicalcience/n135.ml?pin
Brought to you by: Clovis Souza
Sawer, M., Abjorensen, N., & Larkin, P. (2009). Australia: The state of democracy. Annandale, VA: The
Federation Press.
Entry Citation:
Morlino, Leonardo. "Democracy, Quality." International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Ed. Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-
Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011. 566-72. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
SAGE Publications, Inc.