polyarchy


Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

polyarchy

literally, ‘the rule of the many’. In its widest usage in political science and sociology the term refers to any political system in which power is dispersed; thus its antonym is TOTALITARIANISM. As such polyarchy may take many forms, it is not synonymous only with LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, although it is sometimes used as if it were, e.g. by Dahl (1956; 1985). In sociology and in political science especially, a generic association is often seen between the existence of polyarchy and the rise of the modern NATION STATE. However, this is a relationship which has often been interrupted, and it ignores the existence of societies, prior to the emergence of nation states, in which power was relatively dispersed. See also CITIZENSHIP.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
(3) Robert Dahl, Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971), p.
The Dahl text was originally entitled Pluralist Democracy in the United States (1967), and it contained the uppercase "President." In 1972, perhaps in reaction to criticism of the "pluralist" perspective by "elite" theorists, Dahl changed the title of this introductory text to Democracy in the United States, adopted the hybrid "polyarchy" theory, and employed the lowercase "president" (1972a, vii).
is still the dominant player when it comes to exporting polyarchy, a multitude of Northern countries are adopting similar methods.
In as far as independent decision-making is the outcome of decentralised information processing, the difference to be emphasised is not that between the firm and the network but that between a decentralised organisation--that is, a polyarchy where autonomous decision makers undertake projects independently--and a hierarchical organisation, where decisions are taken by the centre "overseeing" the whole production process.
Demonstrating remarkable ability to reduce highly complicated ideas to two simple factors, Dahl clarifies that polyarchy represents two dimensions: inclusiveness and contestation.
Originally developed in 1979, the "Transitions from Authoritarian Rule" project, though conservative in prescription, was generally optimistic that a wider social democracy polity and economic redistribution could be attained in time, [4] believing that "a relatively stable mix of liberalization and democratization -- what Robert Dahl (1986) has called 'polyarchy' -- may have the effect of freezing existing social and economic arrangements" (p.
No less dramatic in the late 1980s into the 1990s were the peace and demilitarization processes under the mediation of international organizations, transitions to polyarchy, and economic restabilization under a new model of free-market capitalism.
Much of the theoretical literature on democratic transitions has taken as its starting point the Schumpeterian model, refined by Dahl's "polyarchy" - from which are derived various "procedural minimum" conceptions, ranging from very minimalist to more "expanded."(18) However, other traditions from which to draw for our discussions of democracy include formulations based on classical conceptions of democracy, as laid out by theorists such as Pateman (1970) and Morlino (1985), and applied to Central America, for example, by Booth (1989, 1995) and Montobbio (1997), as well as a number of contemporary contributions to the democracy literature drawing largely on the experience of social movements (e.g., feminist, indigenous).
To counteract the nuisance implied by actual democracy, American strategists have polished Joseph Schumpeter's earlier idea of democracy in the postwar workshop of Robert Dahl, producing the idea of polyarchy.
In the HCN model, the concept of hierarchy is replaced by polyarchy. The system is organized as a horizontal network, without order and degree of importance between them, only differentiating them by the respective technological densities that characterize them (16).
DAHL, Robert, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971.
Dahl2 in "Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition", also describe some empirical conditions for democracy including participation from citizens.3 With its strong mechanism of participation, social media has the potential of dialogue and power.