What is democracy?

[Poland1944]

What is democracy for you, comrades?

[Slavic]

People coming to a consensus on a matter and agreeing to carry out an action.

To be plain and simple.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What is democracy for you, comrades?

Crap

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Decision-making by the entire society (in communism) or some non-arbitrary permanent group (the proletarian democracy of the transitional state, which excludes the bourgeoisie and other alien class and political elements as a matter of course); the subordination of the minority to the majority.

[Red Star Rising]

Rule by public discussion in which debates are open to contribution by anyone with a political interest, ensuring maximum mutual involvement with government and people. People then agree to carry out action either through a completely proportional vote or otherwise. Democracy is NOT "put a cross next to which of these two self-serving arseholes you hate the least."

[bropasaran]

According to Aristotle, in any system (and social group) it's affairscan be governed by the authority of a single individual, a minority, or the majority. Democracy is the traditional name for the last type of organization, meaning "rule of the people", as opposed to oligarchy "rule of the few" and monarchy "rule of the one". What is called today "democracy", namely, the parliamentary system, is not really a democracy, but an elective oligarchy, a system where a democratic mechanism is used to maintain an oligarchic system. Rousseau, for example, noted on parliamentarism- "The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." Democracy is actually what is today called "direct democracy".

The main objection to democracy is that could lead to tyranny of the majority, as in the known phrase "two wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". As a philosophical view, democracy is based on the view that people are equal and should have a say in the matters that concern them, and having in mind this philosophical basis, it becomes obvious that democracy can turn into tyranny of majority only by contradicting it's own basis, implying that democracy is not identical to majority vote, but presupposes some form of consensus. Rousseau addressed this in The Social Contract:

"A people, says Grotius, can give itself to a king. Then, according to Grotius, a people is a people before it gives itself. The gift is itself a civil act, and implies public deliberation. It would be better, before examining the act by which a people gives itself to a king, to examine that by which it has become a people; for this act, being necessarily prior to the other, is the true foundation of society.

Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation on the minority to submit to the choice of the majority? How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least."

To have a democracy (instead of oligarchy or monarchy) in every workplace is the basis of socialism.

[Red Star Rising]

Crap

What's your alternative?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

According to Aristotle...

Aristotle has been dead for more than two millenia now, and today, the term "democracy" is used in a different manner. Most states are bourgeois democratic republics. I don't know why people can't accept that - actually I do, they're trying to sell some minimum package of reforms as TRUE! democracy and swindle the workers so that they focus on minor matters of the election system etc. instead of the crucial question of private or social ownership of the means of production - but there it is.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What's your alternative?

Anarchy

[Red Star Rising]

Anarchy

Even that would still require collective decision making.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Even that would still require collective decision making.

Ok? Point being?

[Slavic]

Rule by public discussion in which debates are open to contribution by anyone with a political interest, ensuring maximum mutual involvement with government and people. People then agree to carry out action either through a completely proportional vote or otherwise. Democracy is NOT "put a cross next to which of these two self-serving arseholes you hate the least."

Fuck democracy if that is the case. No political platform for those who irrationally hate; only for people like me with a rational hatred : D

[bropasaran]

Aristotle has been dead for more than two millenia now, and today, the term "democracy" is used in a different manner. Most states are bourgeois democratic republics.
Political science, the discipline taught on colledges, doesn't call parliamentarism democracy either, it calls it polyarchy, "rule by many", they point out that there are many people influencing policy, not just like a dozen or two, but they can't deny the fact that the vast majority of the people is disenfranchised and thus don't call the system democratic, because the word means "rule of the people".


they're trying to sell some minimum package of reforms as TRUE! democracy and swindle the workers so that they focus on minor matters of the election system etc. instead of the crucial question of private or social ownership of the means of production - but there it is.
Establishing true democracy in the political and economic sphere would mean abolishing all bosses in those two spheres. That's (libertarian, also known as TRUE!) socialism, the crucial question, not a minor matter, not anything to do with elections.


Ok? Point being?

A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca29

A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca211

[Wht.Rex]

Easy, it is just tool how state is governed. It depends on which democracy you are talking about, representative democracy, where people elect parliament and parliament decided everything, or direct democracy, where people always will decide what to do (a.k.a referendums)

[Bala Perdida]

Democracy is just a name given to a broken system where all exploiters are given an equal say in how they oppress the producing class. Direct democracy can still be perfect if slaves aren't allowed to vote. All it deals with is voting. Democracy is more of a tactic than a system as I see it. In communism, anarchy, and any post revolutionary forms of socialism democracy will cease to exist. The concept will appear brutal and exclusionary in comparison to the non-hierarchical or classless forms of decision making that come about. Call it democracy if you want, I can't stop you, but given how democracy has worked out it seems highly inappropriate.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Political science, the discipline taught on colledges, doesn't call parliamentarism democracy either, it calls it polyarchy, "rule by many", they point out that there are many people influencing policy, not just like a dozen or two, but they can't deny the fact that the vast majority of the people is disenfranchised and thus don't call the system democratic, because the word means "rule of the people".

No, the word "democracy" is derived from the term "rule of the people" and originally denoted the form of government in classical Athens (where, indeed, the vast majority of "the people" were disenfranchised), just as the word "chancellor" is derived from the late Latin term for the latticed screens in basilicas, and originally denoted a type of an usher. Today, of course, these words mean something else entirely.

Some bourgeois professorial types, mainly Dahl, like to claim that states like the US are not "true" democracies, but they explicitly define democracies - against the common usage - so that democracies are impossible. But again, Dahl's theories can't be equated even to bourgeois political science, as bad as that field generally is.

And anyone who advocates "the rule of the people" is an enemy of socialism. Socialists stand for the rule of the proletariat, and for rule over the petit-bourgeoisie etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

Most states are bourgeois democratic republics..

I doubt this is true. Most states are bourgeois dictatorships.


Political science, the discipline taught on colledges, doesn't call parliamentarism democracy either, it calls it polyarchy, "rule by many", they point out that there are many people influencing policy, not just like a dozen or two, but they can't deny the fact that the vast majority of the people is disenfranchised and thus don't call the system democratic, because the word means "rule of the people".

I've done two studies with political science classes, and this is simply not true at all. Parliamentarianism is definitely considered synonymous with representative democracy. This is pretty basic really.


but they can't deny the fact that the vast majority of the people is disenfranchised and thus don't call the system democratic, because the word means "rule of the people".

That's an etymological fallacy. I think you're projecting your own opinion on political science.

[Red Star Rising]

Ok? Point being?
Rule by discussion - democracy.

[bropasaran]

And anyone who advocates "the rule of the people" is an enemy of socialism. Socialists stand for the rule of the proletariat
"Anarchism is a social philosophy which aims at the emancipation- economic, social, political and spiritual- of the human race" Emma Goldman.


and for rule over the petit-bourgeoisie etc.
That's an anti-term, used by marxist as a vague label and and a signal word to point out among themselves their state capitalism at same try and mask themselves by throwing a slur at those who want workers emancipation.


representative democracy.
Which is a meaningful term as much as "democratic centralism" or "anarcho-capitalism", it's a contradiction in terms.


That's an etymological fallacy. I think you're projecting your own opinion on political science.
It would be if there were no people advocating the idea conveyed by the original and/or etymological meaning. By that logic we should accept that "anarchism" means advocacy of absence of state and norms, "anarchy" means chaos, "socialism" means nationalization, and "communism" means brutal rule of a party that calls itself communist- because those are the mainstream meanings of those words.

[Red Star Rising]

Fuck democracy if that is the case. No political platform for those who irrationally hate; only for people like me with a rational hatred : D

People who irrationally hate aren't likely to be listened to by everybody else though...

[Slavic]

People who irrationally hate aren't likely to be listened to by everybody else though...


Tell that shit to any fascist state that has ever existed.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Anarchism is a social philosophy which aims at the emancipation- economic, social, political and spiritual- of the human race" Emma Goldman.

Spiritual emancipation, heh. Of course Goldman, as bad as her politics were, was talking about communism, not the revolutionary period. Anyone who thinks that the revolution will place "the people" to power is not a socialist, no matter what they call themselves, but a liberal.


That's an anti-term, used by marxist as a vague label and and a signal word to point out among themselves their state capitalism at same try and mask themselves by throwing a slur at those who want workers emancipation.

And here we have another impossible moment. People have explained to you what the petite bourgeoisie are over and over - I could probably link to at least three separate threads where you came crying and whining about how the term doesn't make sense, after which people explained how it does and you either stopped responding or started talking about something else. You're nothing more than a spammer.


It would be if there were no people advocating the idea conveyed by the original and/or etymological meaning. By that logic we should accept that "anarchism" means advocacy of absence of state and norms, "anarchy" means chaos, "socialism" means nationalization, and "communism" means brutal rule of a party that calls itself communist- because those are the mainstream meanings of those words.

There are no "mainstream meanings", there is the most common relevant (I'm sure many people think electrons are small balls but that is not relevant as these people have no idea what they're talking about, they're not part of the relevant social group) usage. Of course you approach the meaning of words as if it were a matter of preserving the True and Orthodox meaning against the sinful world, which doesn't surprise me at all, come to think of it.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are some really awesome Wendy Brown political science lectures that she did at Berkeley a few years ago, that were luckily recorded. You can find them here (https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/political-science-112c-001/id460482914?mt=10).

You should listen to all of them if you can (and I also have the syllabus from her, which is attached). The first kinda six lectures are about Tocqueville and the question of democracy, looking specifically at his book Democracy in America. Really interesting stuff.

The later lectures eventually get onto Marx, so that's pretty cool too.

[Red Star Rising]

Tell that shit to any fascist state that has ever existed.

And won't ever exist again.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Democracy is a problematic concept in today's world; it's base definition is the rule of the majority. However, most societies today are diverse in a multitude of ways and minority interests do not get a fair hearing and defence in a society based on democracy.

It is also difficult in the first instance to achieve a 'perfect' democracy, even if we wanted to. How often should elections be held? Should we elect representatives or delegates? What powers should they have? What happens in emergency situations? Can we recall these representatives/delegates? What if we accept that they have a 1, 2 or 5 year term, but then mid-term an issue comes up and we need greater powers, as the people, to over-rule them?

If these problems occur from an analysis of democracy in the abstract, then when you consider that the world is not abstract but concrete, containing complications of social, economic and cultural considerations, then I think actually this base idea of 'rule of the majority' is pretty unsatisfactory.

For this reason, I think that we need to do all we can to ensure that we can move away from the idea of 'ruling' and more towards consensus, delegation and a culture of respect and open, honest communication. I think it is very clear that this would require a seismic change in the base nature of how society is organised.

[Tim Cornelis]

Which is a meaningful term as much as "democratic centralism" or "anarcho-capitalism", it's a contradiction in terms.

Only if you apply an etymological fallacy, as you do here:

"It would be if there were no people advocating the idea conveyed by the original and/or etymological meaning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy


The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception,[1] and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

Representative democracy is not a contradiction in terms since democracy does not literally mean rule by the people. You appealed to 'political science', yet it does not agree with you.

[Slavic]

And won't ever exist again.


That is a very optimistic outlook.

It is not alike a feudal society where the material conditions for such a governance has ceased to exist. Fascism is birth within the capitalist system, and such a system has been enduring fairly well.

I would like to think that you are right.

[Red Star Rising]

That is a very optimistic outlook.

It is not alike a feudal society where the material conditions for such a governance has ceased to exist. Fascism is birth within the capitalist system, and such a system has been enduring fairly well.

I would like to think that you are right.

I'm talking about post-revolutionary democracy. In which the open door to fascism created by capitalism would be kept firmly shut, locked and the key swallowed.

[Slavic]

I'm talking about post-revolutionary democracy. In which the open door to fascism created by capitalism would be kept firmly shut, locked and the key swallowed.

Fascists aside, even post-revolution I do not think that racist and intolerant people will just disappear.

Then again, now that I think of it, what I'm talking about doesn't really pertain to democracy, more so the rights and limitations of speech.

[Prole]

Democracy for me is true Self-Determination, however current socio-economic conditions make this impossible. A true democracy would have a level playing field for which all could determine their own future, and by extension, the future of society.

Politics are just caught up in the conditions of the playing field right now.

[Red Star Rising]

Fascists aside, even post-revolution I do not think that racist and intolerant people will just disappear.

Then again, now that I think of it, what I'm talking about doesn't really pertain to democracy, more so the rights and limitations of speech.

They won't multiply either, and racism/intolerance being directly contradictory to Socialism would at least keep such attitudes low in the revolutionary proletariat - the 99% and the ones in control of the state.

[bropasaran]

Spiritual emancipation, heh.
Of course. As Proudhon said- what capital does to labor, and the state to liberty, the church does to the mind. Although, the mainstream media have replaced the church today for most people, and marxist dogma has come to fill that role for some other people.


Of course Goldman, as bad as her politics were
Well, of course, instead of that bad politics, we should look to Lenin and Trotsky and their drivel about managers with dictatorial power over the workers.


People have explained to you what the petite bourgeoisie are over and over
You keep repeating that, but even though I have asked multiple time for anyone to explain that phrase by giving it a definition of it as a term, all that anyone ever offered were vague and incoherent description of what that word is sometimes used for.


There are no "mainstream meanings", there is the most common relevant
So, "anarchism" means opposition to (only) the state, "socialism" means nationalization, and "communism" means tyranny of a party that has the word 'communist' in it's name? Or are those mainstream meanings a to be proclaimed as "not relevant" by the sacred party, and thus on it's authority those false and heterodox meanings are to be avoided?


Only if you apply an etymological fallacy, as you do here:
Which you do too when you say to people that socialism doesn't mean nationalization of the economy, and that communism doesn't means stalinism? If you even say such stuff, maybe you agree with them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course. As Proudhon said- what capital does to labor, and the state to liberty, the church does to the mind. Although, the mainstream media have replaced the church today for most people, and marxist dogma has come to fill that role for some other people.

The point was that, although "spiritual" might have been a neutral term in the early twentieth century, to hear people speak approvingly about "spiritual liberation" today... that is the point where safeties of Brownings need to be released.


Well, of course, instead of that bad politics, we should look to Lenin and Trotsky and their drivel about managers with dictatorial power over the workers.

Ah, yes, this old canard that impossible resorts to when he has nothing to say (which, in fact, is all the time). Have you ever read anything by Lenin or Trotsky? Or is "an anarchist FAQ" the only thing you have ever read?


You keep repeating that, but even though I have asked multiple time for anyone to explain that phrase by giving it a definition of it as a term, all that anyone ever offered were vague and incoherent description of what that word is sometimes used for.

Oh, you absolute bastard. Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/petit-bourgeoisie-t189122/index.html) is one of the threads where you came crying with the same crap and got trounced. One of many fucking similar threads, and yet here you are, again crying that no one explained to you what the petite-bourgeoisie are. I would guess that you're too stupid to understand, but no, you'd have to be a vegetable or a mutualist to not understand something after it has been explained to you four or five times. You're just here to troll.

And to be honest, I mean, you're not hurting us mean old Leninists, you're just making the anarchists look like buffoons by association.


So, "anarchism" means opposition to (only) the state, "socialism" means nationalization, and "communism" means tyranny of a party that has the word 'communist' in it's name? Or are those mainstream meanings a to be proclaimed as "not relevant" by the sacred party, and thus on it's authority those false and heterodox meanings are to be avoided?

So tell us, impossible, how do words acquire meaning? Does the lord God write down the meanings in some metaphysical dictionary? Or is the formation of meaning a social process? Of course people who think that socialism is nationalisation under a bourgeois state are not the relevant social group, and that has nothing to do with party affiliation but their relation to the actual socialist movement.

Now, please, go troll somewhere else. I don't know, DNZ got restricted recently, maybe you will be as well. I won't hold my breath though. Years of exaggerating sighing when I see this sort of nonsense being peddled - and you're not the first and you won't be the last to do so - have left me with a piss-poor lung capacity.

[Luís Henrique]

Political science, the discipline taught on colledges, doesn't call parliamentarism democracy either, it calls it polyarchy, "rule by many",

:rolleyes:

"Polyarchy" is a completely different thing; it refers to different agencies ruling the same thing, resulting in conflict.


they point out that there are many people influencing policy, not just like a dozen or two, but they can't deny the fact that the vast majority of the people is disenfranchised and thus don't call the system democratic, because the word means "rule of the people".

Ethymologically, it meant "rule of the demos" (which is by the way not what we modernly call "people"). But nowadays it means what it means, ie, regimes such as the US', UK's, Brazil's, France's... and also simply the process of decision in which the involved argue freely, and then act according to the position of the majority - as long as that does not impose restrictions on the former clause.

That it means two different things (that are even mutually exclusive to an extent) may be a problem; but if so, it is not a problem that can be solved by finding the "TRUE" platonic meaning of the word.

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

What does that question even mean, what does democracy mean to you? Democracy is a form of organization. Marxism says the form is ultimately not as important as the content, but that the form is shaped by the content and acts like a shell for it. Who the fuck cares "what does democracy mean to you?" (I suspect that it is a singular "you.")

[Rafiq]

Only if you apply an etymological fallacy, as you do here:

"It would be if there were no people advocating the idea conveyed by the original and/or etymological meaning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy


I think this can be applied to a number of things reserved casually by people here.

[Tim Cornelis]

So, "anarchism" means opposition to (only) the state, "socialism" means nationalization, and "communism" means tyranny of a party that has the word 'communist' in it's name? Or are those mainstream meanings a to be proclaimed as "not relevant" by the sacred party, and thus on it's authority those false and heterodox meanings are to be avoided?


Which you do too when you say to people that socialism doesn't mean nationalization of the economy, and that communism doesn't means stalinism? If you even say such stuff, maybe you agree with them.

I don't say that actually. I always say, "according to Marxism…". I tend to say something along the lines of "you may call Sweden socialist, but then your definition of socialism falls within the Marxist concept of the capitalist mode of production." I never say "that's not TRUE socialism."

I explain it so:

We obviously don't consider Europe socialist. To us, the socialist mode of production is based on common ownership and associated labour. All socialist positions consider themselves to be "genuine". So saying "all genuine socialists agree" is self-referential and circular.
If we, as idealist socialists do, like workers' self-management, we can define socialism as synonymous with a system based on workers' self-management. If we like welfare states, we can define socialism as such. Anything can be embraced and denounced as socialism if there is some remote historical continuity between the classical socialism of the nineteenth century and some political movement today. Marxism takes a different approach determining what socialism is, not as abstract ideological concept, but as prospective future society. We begin with what socialism is, and not what we would want it to be like. Marxism begins by analysing the social development as it plays out through history, which is the result of the objective factor of the development of productive forces. We covered how capitalism came about, and revealed it was not by argument of great philosophers or thinkers like Adam Smith. Similarly, the basis for socialism is not arguments, philosophy, rationality, or persuasion but capitalism. This is summarised by Marx as: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” (German Ideology by Karl Marx). We see the social development of the socialisation of the productive and labour process, the concentration of capital which furthers planning (though still constrained by the 'anarchy of the market'), and we observe class antagonisms giving rise to class struggle. Social ownership comes about through socialised production being confronted with class struggle, which, as consequence (once class struggle culminates in a social revolution) has the socialised production process slipped into the hands of public property. It is "slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible." Then, associations assume control of production, the logical consequence of workers overthrowing bourgeois class rule. They replace the bourgeois management. Associated labour replaces wage-labour not because we prefer it (although we do), but because of social progress. And commodity production is "entirely inconsistent with" associated labour.

Socialism is just the name we, or Marxists, happen to have given to the mode of production that will result from the contradictions and conflicts of this mode of production that we have happened to name capitalism.

Moreover, your argument that this is not a "true democracy" stems from the etymology of the word "rule by the people". I never say, communism is when there are things in common, since communism is derived from the Latin 'to have in common'.

[bropasaran]

The point was that, although "spiritual" might have been a neutral term in the early twentieth century, to hear people speak approvingly about "spiritual liberation" today...
It literally takes a few words to explain "spiritual liberation" as used by Goldman, the ones I just used. Only malevolent people would misinterpret the phrase when it is explained to them.


Ah, yes, this old canard that impossible resorts to when he has nothing to say (which, in fact, is all the time). Have you ever read anything by Lenin or Trotsky?
They advocated ednolichie/ ednonachalie, which means monocracy/ one-man-governance, and explicitly explained that it means managers having dictatorial power over the workers. If that's socialism (or a 'necessary' precondition of socialism), then fuck socialism.


Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/petit-bourgeoisie-t189122/index.html) is one of the threads
Can you point to the concrete message where that label was defined as a term?


Of course people who think that socialism is nationalisation under a bourgeois state are not the relevant social group
So, basically, you're saying the same thing that I am, but instead of referencing the historical, original meaning of the word (as used by the original socialist movement, which predates marxism), you are proclaiming all people who disagree with you non-relevant.

Also, I love the implied circular reasoning in proclaiming such people irrelevant. You base you claim that they are not relevant on your proclamation that they don't are not related to the "actual socialist movement". And what's the "actual socialist movement"? Well, we have to know what's "socialism" in order to be able to say. And what's "socialism"? Well, that's what the "actual socialist movement" says it is.


"Polyarchy" is a completely different thing; it refers to different agencies ruling the same thing, resulting in conflict.
No, the standard parliamentary system of "representative democracy" is referenced as polyarchy.


I don't say that actually. I always say, "according to Marxism…". I tend to say something along the lines of "you may call Sweden socialist, but then your definition of socialism falls within the Marxist concept of the capitalist mode of production." I never say "that's not TRUE socialism."
OK, I can go descriptive, too, and say: "sure, you call that socialism, and I disagree, thinking that we shouldn't call that socialism". That just describes the disagreement, doesn't say anything about whose position should be accepted. For that, we have to posit the arguments of both sides as to why they use the word socialism for whatever they use it for, and see which one merits acceptance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What does that question even mean, what does democracy mean to you? Democracy is a form of organization. Marxism says the form is ultimately not as important as the content, but that the form is shaped by the content and acts like a shell for it. Who the fuck cares "what does democracy mean to you?" (I suspect that it is a singular "you.")

It is important because 'democracy' is one of the philosophical concepts (although today it's more of an empty buzz word devoid of meaningful political content) that western capitalist society has developed along the lines of, since the advent of enlightenment philosophical thought.

We need to have a correct understanding of what 'democracy' means - in abstract philosophical terms; in class society; and based on this we need to judge whether 'democracy' in one form or another has any place in a post-class society.

I think to say that the question of 'what is democracy' isn't important at all is a bit naive. Whilst I share a natural distrust and dislike of abstract philosophical concepts that are not widely accessible nor applicable in the real world, I think we need to be careful with regards to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ending up in an anti-intellectual cul-de-sac where we end up rejecting historically important concepts like democracy, through the analysis of which we can further our own understanding of the machinations of capitalism, and the potential political alternatives to class society.

[Remus Bleys]

You missed the mark I was not intending to make a serious contribution but rather to criticize the way the question was asked

[Luís Henrique]

No, the standard parliamentary system of "representative democracy" is referenced as polyarchy.

By Robert Dahl and no one else.

Luís Henrique