What Is Democracy and Why Is It in Crisis

Minimal and Maximal Democracy

Schumpeter, in "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" (1942), proposed a minimal definition of democracy: a political method in which citizens periodically choose between elite groups competing for power. Democracy is not the rule of the people in the literal sense, but a mechanism for the peaceful change of elites.

This contrasts with the maximal (deliberative, participatory, republican) understanding: democracy is active citizen participation in self-governance, the formation of common will through public discussion. Habermas, Cohen, Mussud are theorists of deliberative democracy: the legitimacy of decisions is determined by the quality of the discussion in which they are made.

In practice, modern democracies are a mixture: periodic elections (Schumpeterian minimum) plus constitutional limitations (protection of minorities), civil society (space for participation), free press (condition for meaningful choice), rule of law.

Democratic Deficit

The crisis of democracy is multifaceted:

Discontent with elites: in most Western countries, trust in politicians, parties, and parliaments is declining. Citizens feel that "their vote does not matter" — that real decisions are made in the interests of elites and big business.

Polarization: the media ecosystem (especially social networks) creates "bubbles" and "echo chambers". Citizens live in different informational worlds, losing the ability for dialogue and mutual understanding. Political opponents cease to be "adversaries" and become "enemies".

Technocratism: many key decisions are transferred to independent agencies — central banks, regulators, supranational organizations — outside democratic control. This increases the "quality" of decisions from the standpoint of expertise, but creates a "democratic deficit".

Short-termism: democratic governments respond to electoral cycles (4–5 years), whereas key challenges (climate change, pension systems, infrastructure) require long-term planning.

Illiberal Democracy

Orban in Hungary, Kaczyński in Poland, Erdoğan in Turkey — leaders who win elections but systematically undermine liberal institutions: independence of courts, freedom of the press, autonomy of civil society. Zakaria called this "illiberal democracy".

The key question: can democracy self-destruct by democratic means? Can the majority vote to abolish protections for minorities, constitutional rights, independence of institutions?

The founding fathers (Madison, Hamilton) feared precisely the "tyranny of the majority" and designed a system of checks and balances: an independent court, federalism, separation of powers. Illiberal democrats systematically dismantle these checks, preserving the electoral shell.