There is a Wolof word, demokaraasi, which is etymologically linked to the English-language word

"democracy." Demokaraasi derives from the French democratie, a word most likely introduced into
Senegal during the early twentieth century. It was at this time that French colonizers were building the
foundations of the modern Senegalese state and, most importantly in this context, expanding the use of
elections. Like its American rough equivalent, the Wolof term today can be used to refer to electoral
institutions and multiparty competition. Both Wolof and American concepts share, in short, similar
institutional referents. The main question, however, is whether there are also similar standards or ideals
involved.
The first section explores the meaning of this Wolof concept demokaraasi. The second section briefly
compares the meaning of this Wolof concept with that of the American concept of democracy.
The Meaning of Demokaraasi
What does this Wolof concept demokaraasi mean? During that time, Frederci Schaffer interviewed about
175 Wolof-speakers on their views of politics and demokaraasi. Based on these interviews, it seems that
demokaraasi involves three interrelated ideals. The first ideal is evenhandedness: treating people fairly. As
the son of a marabout stated:
Demokaraasi means to treat people evenhandedly. If you have two bowls for two people, if you intend to
put food in one, you need to divide it up equally. One shouldn't get more than the other. That shows that
demokaraasi prevails, because you treated the two people the same. In Wolof we say that "the mother of
twins lies on her back." To permit each infant to suckle a breast as it likes, when it likes - that is
demokaraasi.
Similarly, a farmer explained:
Demokaraasi means that when you have two wives, you have to do everything possible to avoid arguments
in the household. If you have something, you need to distribute it equally.
The second ideal is mutuality: sharing responsibility for one another's well being. As an elderly farmer put
it:
When there's work to do we come together to do it. When someone falls ill, we come together to cultivate
his field. If something happens to one of us, everybody helps him out financially. When someone is sick,
the women go to the well to fetch him water. That is our demokaraasi here [in our village].
Another farmer:
You're weaving a thatched roof for your hut. Here you can do it all out in the field. You place the frame on
the ground, you put it together, you plait the straw. You do everything. But you can't lift it yourself. It's too
heavy to pick up. You have to call someone to help you. You call one person, you call another. Together you
all lift it up. That is our demokaraasi.
The third ideal is consensus: the achievement of agreement. As a blacksmith explained:
There is demokaraasi in our village because each time we disagree, we straighten things out, we mend
things.
A Catholic teenager from the capital city, Dakar, expressed himself in similar terms:
Demokaraasi is to agree, to form 'one.' Even if you are many, to be able to form a bloc and work together.
To form one is to support one another, to discuss among yourselves. Even if agreement is difficult, you
need to do all you can to reach a consensus.

This interview data showed considerable uniformity in how non-French speaking Wolofones understood
demokaraasi. For almost every interviewee the concept seemed to involve (as the excerpts above suggest)
one of these three interrelated ideals: evenhandedness, mutuality, or consensus. Schaffer said that these
ideals are interrelated because they all seem to involve a sense of interdependence and community-wide
solidarity. Jointly these ideals constitute what we might describe as a notion of "cooperative caretaking."
Democracy and Demokaraasi Compared
It is enough to say that American notions of democracy seem to correspond most closely to the Wolof
notion of cooperative caretaking in their emphasis on consensus and equality. Several prominent American
political scientists (Dahl 1956; Key 1961:27-53), for instance, have pointed to an underlying societal
consensus that makes democracy possible. Even critics of contemporary American democracy (Pateman
1970; Pitkin and Shumer, 1982) are attracted to ideas of consultation, deliberation, and consensus building,
and often incorporate them into models of "participatory," or "deliberative," democracy. But while
consensus can be a precondition for, or part of, the democratic process, few Americans would argue that
democracy is, tout court, the achievement of agreement, which is what the Wolof concept demokaraasi has
come to mean in some of the above statements. Shorn from demokaraasi, in other words, are notions of
governance or collective decision-making that provide the context for deliberation and consensus building
in American scholarly theories of democracy. Americans also sometimes use democracy to mean a state of
social equality, often brought about by an agent that eliminates, or at least dampens or makes irrelevant,
privilege and distinction. One such democratic leveler is the New York subway. In the words of a
newspaper columnist:
Perhaps more than any other institution in the city, the trains are the great democratizer, where the maid and
stockbroker sit side by side, sharing in the same advertisements for relief of hemorrhoids and the tales of
woe spun by bedraggled panhandlers (New York Times, August 31, 1991).
In a related usage, democracy can also mean a state of distributive equality, in which an advantage or
privilege previously enjoyed by or reserved for a small number of people gets extended to a wider
population. Gourmet ice cream is such a benefit. Thus a writer described the invention of this "affordable
luxury" as "street-corner democracy in action: for five gooey mouthfuls, a secretary could eat as well as
Donald Trump" (Washington Post, March 26, 1989).
Basic to both American and Wolof concepts, it appears, is some notion of equality, whether it takes the
form of social equality (the equality of maid and stockbroker riding the same subway train), distributive
equality (the equality experienced by the secretary who can eat the same ice cream as Donald Trump) or
fairness (the equality of a mother nursing her twins without partiality). The leveling or homogenizing
democracy of the subway or gourmet ice cream converges with demokaraasi used in the sense of fair
treatment.
The equalities of democracy and demokaraasi show further similarities insofar as both are only partial.
In demokaraasi, there is no leveling of status between mother and nursing infants, or between polygamous
husband and his wives. What is important is that guardians and benefactors treat those under their care
or patronage evenhandedly. In democracy, hierarchy exists as a kind of background condition. It only
makes sense to speak of the democratizing effect of the subway if stockbroker and maid were in some
meaningful sense unequal before they went underground. And of course, this inequality still exists while
they ride the subway, or while the secretary eats the same ice cream as Donald Trump. Stockbroker and
maid share only subway inconveniences; Mr. Trump and the secretary share only ice cream. It is, in
effect, the leveling of particular inequalities that counts as democracy.
To sum up, then, democracy and demokaraasi are related in meaning, which is not surprising since they
are linked historically by way of democratie. In their institutional aspects, they are related insofar as
they are both used centrally to refer to electoral institutions, but may also be used to refer to a wider
range of institutions and everyday situations. In their ideal aspects, they are related insofar as both entail
some notion of partial equality. Where demokaraasi departs from the American English term is in its
coupling of participation in electoral institutions with ideals of social welfare, and the consequent extension
of the concept to refer to a range of actions that promote collective security.