This classic is still highly relevant to our turbulent era of Proud Boys and the like. Takes a structured approach: moving from values to empirical testing. What is Democracy? The answer depends on what we believe is good, right, desirable. Why democracy? Depends both on values, and on interpretations of evidence, facts. What institutions and processes does democracy require? The answer relies more on evidence and empirical judgments, but still what matters depends on values expressed earlier. What conditions favor democracy? Depends entirely on interpreting available evidence.

Answering the first question, what is democracy? The minimum criteria or democratic ideals may never be reached, but they set a standard against which to evaluate alternative possibilities, solutions, practices and institutions. There are 5 criteria: effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults. By these measures, democracies have only in the last 100 years started to meet the fifth one, even though the concept of democacy goes back at least to Ancient Athens. For the second, Why democracy? there are 10 criteria, centering on rights, human development, freedom and prosperity. For the third, a key assumption is intrinsic political equality, based on ethical and religious grounds, the absence of alternatives, prudence and acceptability.

The remainder looks at what conditions favor democracy. Here there is a key distinction between democracies of different scales. At a small scale, such as a primitive hunting group or a town meeting today, there are fewer challenges in meeting the 5 criteria. At a large scale, these challenges loom larger, as participation needs to be through representation, and decisions get increasingly complex. The latter cases need elected officials, frequent fair elections, rules on freedom of speech, independent information, freedom to assemble, and inclusiveness. Again, no democracy meets the ideal in all these criteria, but the criteria set a standard against which to evaluate each case. There are many types of constitutions, electoral, party and leadership structures, and none can be called "best practice": it depends on the context. If conditions are favorable, democracy will work, if not, it probably won't, and if some conditions are favorable, it might work. Favorable conditions are: civilian control of military and police, democratic cultural beliefs, no strong foreign control opposing democracy, market economy, and reasonable cultural homogeneity. Looking forward, it is impossible to predict whether democracy will spread wider, as it has since the 1950s, or contract. One challenge is the fact that markets lead to economic inequality without deep regulation. A second challenge is increasing internationalism, which is anti-democratic. A third is increasing cultural pluralism, making consensus harder to achieve.

First published in 2000, updated with new chapters from Ira Shapiro in 2020. Shapiro confirms that Dahl's insights are still highly relevant today. In my view, the updating of the book should have said more about the rise of China, which has delivered rapid improvements in human development, albeit without key freedoms and liberties, through a different model of participation and accountability. Does this pose an existential challenge to democracy, or is it a unique model that will only work in China's special historical context?

I was afraid when starting this that it was going to be very hard to understand but Dahl actually made what I thought were going to be complex topics into easy to understand ideas. This was a great book to help me first learn about democracy and if it hadn't been for my political science course then I might not have ever read this.

A good, if not short, recap of democratic theory. Robert A. Dahl is a prominent political scientist and this is very evident throughout his books so stay away if your interests lie in radical political theories. Democracy is a very well thought out concept and most scholars acknowledge its weaknesses. Every time I thought that his analysis was superficial he would come up with a counter argument for my position. This was very evident in his critique of direct-democracy which is rarely criticized by libertarian leftists on a pragmatic basis. The most important idea is that Democracy is more of an ideal utopian concept and there are really no democratic countries in the world. What we do have is a polyarchy, a term which isn't fully explored here - you can check it out on Wikipedia, there's a full article there-. This book was written in 1996 and is still very relevant for beginners. I'll try his more academic works.

There's also a very good interview of Robert Dahl himself on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPl4Lk...

A necessary and elemental read. Covers the what is, the why, the how and the when of democracy, all in a clear and no none-sense dialogue. The section on electoral systems and the democracy-free market dynamic were especially enlighting.

A wonderful -- and amazingly brief -- primer on the essential ideas behind, and components of, democracy by the eminent 20th century American political scientist Robert Dahl.

It is especially important in the turmoil in which the United States is embroiled for more citizens to understand the several essential components necessary if democracy is to work, let alone survive.

Whatever one's politics, if you truly strive to think and reason -- rather than simply bloviate regurgitated ideological bullets -- this book will help you clarify what is important for us to do together IF the Republic is to be wrested from the wealthy plutocracy and restored to its earlier vigor.

Dahl's essay is a good introductory handbook. His aim is to exlpore both under a normative and a realistic perspective the crucial features of democratic regimes. The book is not at all excessively technical, apart from some sections. However, it is a bit nationally biased and too assertive, as far as I am concerned. The idea of spotting universal patterns of a certain human phenomenon looks like an outdated approach.

so basically democracy is and always has been a fantasy

A ver vale que estoy en primero de carrera pero esq a este señor le han faltado dibujitos a color y lletra lligada para que pareciera un libro infantil, osea está explicado pa tontos muy fuertemente.

Lowkey boring as far as comparative politics is concerned. However, it is def a foundational book.

Brief, on point booklet on the hugely misunderstood and unclear concept of democracy. I personally agreeded on Dahl´s view of polyarchy (representative democracy with universal suffrage) and its ambivalent nature in market economies. The book is also vividly written which makes it cool to read.

If you have any interest in political theory, well worth your time. I am not a student, nor is my primary interest in political theory, but because I read a ton of history this is invaluable for further understanding politics in history.

I like this book because it is well-written and smart, but also it's very basic, very elementary. I think everyone who just assumes, "oh, of COURSE I know what a democracy is, duh!" should read this, because it lays out and defines something I think many of us take for granted. It also shows the nuance of the fact that many countries are democratic on a certain scale, and certain factors/conditions are more advanced in some democratic countries contrasted with others.

Basic, but well worth the return to basics.

From my perspective, awful. It's overly simplistic and condescendingly written. I understand that it was written for a lay audience - a sort of "here's a taste of what democratic studies look like", and was going to give it two stars because I figured it might have some value for beginners. But then I thought about it, and I can't. His conclusions are at times misleading. At other times, he draws sweeping generalizations with very, very little argumentation. That's the main problem. The tone of the text should have been "Here is a lay of the land." Dahl's desire to offer conclusions, however, oftentimes pushes it into "Here is the correct answer to this theoretical issue." I imagine that some people will read this book and feel as thought they have strong arguments in favor of Dahl's position. Yet because this is a primer, Dahl (rightfully) doesn't demonstrate the full scope of the objections to his analytic and normative conclusions.

So to those of us who are democratic theorists, the book is not useful. To those who are not, this book is likely to be misleading. Hence one star.