Democracy According to Dahl, Schmitter, and Karl
This paper examines two foundational texts in democratic theory — Schmitter and Karl's "What Democracy Is… and Is Not" and Dahl's "What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require" — to explore the distinction between the possibility and feasibility of democracy. Drawing on the post-1989 transitions away from autocratic rule in Eastern Europe, the paper contrasts the democratic success of reunified Germany with the democratic backsliding of Russia under Vladimir Putin. It further engages with Dahl's argument for normalized electoral processes and equal voting rights, concluding with a brief devil's advocate critique of over-emphasis on electoral procedure at the expense of effective governance.
- Introduction: The Post-1989 Wave of Democratic Transitions: Schmitter and Karl's optimism about post-1989 democratization assessed
- Possibility Versus Feasibility of Democracy: Distinction between democracy's possibility and its feasibility
- Case Studies: Germany and Russia: Germany's success and Russia's democratic backsliding compared
- Dahl's Ground Rules for Democratic Order: Dahl's case for normalized elections and political equality
- Critique of Electoral Emphasis: Counterargument that over-emphasis on elections harms governance
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper introduces a sharp and original conceptual distinction — between the possibility and the feasibility of democracy — and applies it consistently across its argument, giving the analysis a unifying analytical thread.
- Concrete comparative examples (East/West Germany versus Russia) ground abstract theoretical claims in observable historical outcomes, making the argument both accessible and persuasive.
- The paper demonstrates intellectual honesty by engaging a devil's advocate counterargument against Dahl's electoral thesis, showing the writer can hold and evaluate competing positions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper synthesizes two separate scholarly sources into a single comparative framework rather than summarizing each in isolation. By reading Schmitter and Karl's optimism against subsequent historical events, the writer performs a retrospective critique — a strong analytical move that shows independent judgment beyond the sources themselves.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with Schmitter and Karl's thesis on the global democratic wave, immediately complicating it with the benefit of hindsight. It then builds its own conceptual distinction (possibility vs. feasibility), tests it through two case studies, pivots to Dahl's prescriptive argument on electoral institutions, and closes with a counterargument. The structure moves logically from descriptive theory, to historical application, to normative prescription, to critique.
Introduction: The Post-1989 Wave of Democratic Transitions
In their article, political theorists Schmitter and Karl address with relative optimism the opportunities that seem to signal a global thrust toward democratic reform. They noted that "the wave of transitions away from autocratic rule that began with Portugal's 'Revolution of the Carnations' in 1974 and seems to have crested with the collapse of communist regimes across Eastern Europe in 1989 has produced a welcome convergence toward a common definition of democracy" (96). With the passage of time, however, we can now critically assess the failure of democracy to truly take hold in many of these contexts — most saliently in Russia. It is clear that democracy's incapacity to immediately restore stability and prosperity to a crumbled way of life would ultimately allow many of these former Eastern European nations to slide back into political corruption or economic ruin, disrupting the optimism of Western capitalists that seems to be echoed in the comments of Schmitter and Karl.
Possibility Versus Feasibility of Democracy
It is here that we can glimpse the primary distinction between the possibility of democracy and the feasibility of democracy. Indeed, it is only the former that would appear to have been represented in the 1989 fall of the Iron Curtain. The possibility of democracy peeked its head out from the rubble of collapsed totalitarian and imperialist regimes — its possibility existing only by virtue of the fact that prior governmental systems had failed, stretched thin by a combination of economic mismanagement, military decline, and international pressure. All of these forces gave way to what many might have predicted would be a burgeoning push for democratic values.
Case Studies: Germany and Russia
Today, we can recognize that it is perhaps the feasibility of democracy which may still be subject to debate in Eastern Europe. Nations here provide differing examples of why democracy does and does not succeed. In Germany, for instance, the East/West division had long levied a cultural pressure on the oppressed people of East Germany to enjoy the same liberties available to those in West Germany. The fall of the Berlin Wall demonstrated genuine commitment to that goal, as those recently liberated coalesced around the democratic orientation of the larger nation.
For Russia, by contrast, a public largely unexposed to the systems and conditions of democracy has rendered a people deeply susceptible to exploitation. The current Russian leader — Vladimir Putin, former chief of the Soviet KGB — has imposed suppression of political opposition, journalistic freedom, and social liberties. Here, democracy has proven less than feasible due to an absence of internal will and resources sufficient to seize on the opportunity. A long history of oppression has rendered democracy abstract and unattainable, even in the face of symbolic gestures such as Russian free elections. This comparison illustrates how the structural and cultural preconditions for liberal democracy can prove as decisive as any formal political transition.
Works Cited
Dahl, R. A. "What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require." Political Science Quarterly, vol. 120, no. 2, 2005, pp. 187–197.
Schmitter, P. C., and T. L. Karl. "What Democracy Is… and Is Not." Journal of Democracy, 1991.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.