Volume 2, Issue 4, December 2019, Page: 79-85
The Role and Limits of Representative Democracy: An Analysis from Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, and Anthony Downs
Jochua Abrão Baloi, Faculty of Ethics, Human and Legal Sciences of the University of Saint Thomas of Mozambique, Maputo, Mozambique
Received: Sep. 11, 2019;       Accepted: Oct. 7, 2019;       Published: Oct. 31, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20190204.11      View  17      Downloads  18
Abstract
This article comes about with the objective of analyzing in a comparative way the role and limits of representative democracy in the perspective of Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Dahl and Anthony Downs. In practice, it seeks to understand the ideas launched by these three theorists in the quest for a perception of what will become a democracy and its importance in the formation and constitution of the modern democracies. The central argument presented in this article is that in a truly democratic political system, popular participation is an essential element for the construction and execution of political actions. J. Schumpeter conceives democracy as a method that societies use to elect their representatives. R. Dahl conceives it as a polyarchy where both, the degree of incorporation of individuals and the level of institutionalization must be maximized and, A. Downs conceives democracy as a type of government where there should be fair and periodic elections, and one or more parties must compete for government control. Therefore, it is by analyzing the political thinking regarding the power and the representative democracy of these theorists that one perceives how the State left its natural character, thus assuming its civil personality, through the formation of the social contract.
Keywords
Democracy, State, Government, Polyarchy
To cite this article
Jochua Abrão Baloi, The Role and Limits of Representative Democracy: An Analysis from Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, and Anthony Downs, Journal of Political Science and International Relations. Vol. 2, No. 4, 2019, pp. 79-85. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20190204.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Alcantara, Pedro Henrique (2017). The Elites against Democracy: The Minimalist Conception in the Hegemonic Field of Democratic Theory. Criticism and Society: magazine of political culture, Uberlândia, v. 7, no. 2, 2017.
[2]
Centeno, Alison Ribeiro (2018). Confluences and Dissonances Between the theories of the democracy of Schumpeter and dahl: analysis of the criticism and some of their impacts. Rev. Field Notebooks | Macaw | no 25 | P. 139-156 | Jul. /Dec. 2018 | and ISSN 2359-2419.
[3]
Steffens, Nikolay (2018). Debates in contemporary democratic theory: notes on the relationship between the market theories of politics and the principle of the natural identity of interests. Conjecture: Filos. Educ., V. 23, no. in particular, dossier Ethics and democracy. 2018, DOI: 10.18226 / 21784612.v23.dossie.6.
[4]
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1961). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Rio de Janeiro: Culture Fund, pp, 296, 535, 355, 357.
[5]
Silva, Pedro Gustavo de Sousa (2008). Democracy Theories: Contributions by Sartori, Dahl and Schumpeter. Urutagua Magazine. No. 15 - Apr./mai./jun./jul. 2008 - Quarterly - Maringá – Paraná, p. 162.
[6]
Miguel, Luís Felipe (2013). Democracy and Representation: Territories in Dispute. São Paulo: Unesp Publisher, p. 54.
[7]
Weber, Max (1996). Science and Politics two Vocations. São Paulo: Cultrix.
[8]
Costa, Homero de Oliveira (2007). Democracy and participation in pluralist theory. Kronos, Natal-RN, v. 8, no. 1, p. 215-228, jan./jun.
[9]
Dahl, Robert A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2: 3 (1957: July).
[10]
Blokland, Hans (2016). Pluralism, Democracy and Political Knowledge: Robert A. Dahl and his critics on modern politics. New York: Routledge.
[11]
Bachrach, Peter; BARATZ Morton S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, Volume 56, Issue 4 (Dec. 1962), p. 947.
[12]
Sieyès, E. M. [1788] (1988). The Bourgeois Constituent. What Is the Third State? (org. By A. W. Bastos). Rio de Janeiro: Liber Juris.
[13]
Dahl, Robert A. (2005). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. São Paulo: Edusp, p. 26.
[14]
Downs, Anthony (1999). An Economic Theory of Democracy. São Paulo: Edusp, pp. 28, 45, 293.
[15]
Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Apr. 1957), p. 135-150.
Browse journals by subject