In the first reading, Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl argue that democracy requires rights and civil liberties for citizens beyond election time. In other words, Schmitter and Karl define democracy through a procedural concept in which they focus on minimum standards and procedures that allow countries to be considered democracies (Dickovick and Eastwood, 2016, p. 91). On the other hand, Seymour Martin Lipset is a proponent of the theory of modernization and argues that democracy is the result of economic modernization and growth. Also, Lipset uses four factors to demonstrate the positive correlation between modernization and democracy which are: income, level of industrialization, education, and urbanization (Lipset, 1959).
In the previous …show more content…
However, their use of the eleven criteria to determine the differences between democracies is valid as no two democracies are identical. An example can be portrayed in liberal democracies which differ in terms of the health of their democracies when tested against the criteria put forward by Schmitter and Karl such as levels of citizen participation and access. Also, Schmitter and Karl use the procedural minimal conditions offered by Robert Dahl that must be present in a modern political democracy. These conditions provide more validly to Schmitter’s and Karl’s argument for the procedural definition of democracy as rights and civil liberties have proven their necessity in creating successful and stable democracies in countries like Canada. However, a counter argument would be the fact that there is a substantive view in which the extent of democracy is measured by the achievements of society in areas such are civic participation and reduction in inequalities rather than minimum standards and procedures (Schmitter and Karl, …show more content…
Also, Schmitter’s and Karl’s analysis showcases democracy as the solution to tensions in society rather than a recipe for good life in all areas of the economy and society. In fact, they make it clear that a democracy is not necessarily more efficient than other forms of government economically or administratively as well as not necessarily being more governable than the system it replaces (Schmitter and Karl, 1991). On the other hand, Lipset’s argument is one which is well respected as Lipset was one of first to link economic and social modernization to democratization through the use of statistical evidence to showcase the correlation between a range of development variables with democracy (Dickovick and Eastwood, 2015, p. 132-133). However, it is important to note that correlation does not mean causation. In fact, just because there is a relationship between variables does not mean that one causes the other as can be seen in cases such as India and
In the previous …show more content…
However, their use of the eleven criteria to determine the differences between democracies is valid as no two democracies are identical. An example can be portrayed in liberal democracies which differ in terms of the health of their democracies when tested against the criteria put forward by Schmitter and Karl such as levels of citizen participation and access. Also, Schmitter and Karl use the procedural minimal conditions offered by Robert Dahl that must be present in a modern political democracy. These conditions provide more validly to Schmitter’s and Karl’s argument for the procedural definition of democracy as rights and civil liberties have proven their necessity in creating successful and stable democracies in countries like Canada. However, a counter argument would be the fact that there is a substantive view in which the extent of democracy is measured by the achievements of society in areas such are civic participation and reduction in inequalities rather than minimum standards and procedures (Schmitter and Karl, …show more content…
Also, Schmitter’s and Karl’s analysis showcases democracy as the solution to tensions in society rather than a recipe for good life in all areas of the economy and society. In fact, they make it clear that a democracy is not necessarily more efficient than other forms of government economically or administratively as well as not necessarily being more governable than the system it replaces (Schmitter and Karl, 1991). On the other hand, Lipset’s argument is one which is well respected as Lipset was one of first to link economic and social modernization to democratization through the use of statistical evidence to showcase the correlation between a range of development variables with democracy (Dickovick and Eastwood, 2015, p. 132-133). However, it is important to note that correlation does not mean causation. In fact, just because there is a relationship between variables does not mean that one causes the other as can be seen in cases such as India and