Abstract
This short piece discusses Hélène Landemore’s proposal of an ‘open democracy’, as outlined in her recent book Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Acknowledging the value of Landemore’s radical and ambitious proposals, I draw attention to a number of shortcomings and blind spots that have to do with how the case for an ‘open democracy’ is made: through an unduly brief and dismissive treatment of political parties; a methodological insensitivity to empirical variations of democratic performance and citizens’ evaluations of the latter; a failure to distinguish between higher and ordinary law-making in the discussion of the central Icelandic case; and, finally, a surprising concession that realising an open democracy is all but infeasible in established constitutional democracies. If open democracy is to be an attractive ideal, these issues must arguably be addressed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 161-170 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Res Publica |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 25 Jul 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2024 |
Austrian Fields of Science 2012
- 506013 Political theory
Keywords
- Deliberation
- Feasibility
- Hélène Landemore
- Open democracy
- Political parties
- Representative democracy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Should traditional representative institutions be abolished? A critical comment on Hélène Landemore’s Open Democracy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver