Electoral studies and democratic theory reconsidered

Abstract

In recent years, political theorists and social scientists have sought to assess the contemporary relevance and validity of a so-called classical doctrine of democracy in light of empirical evidence emphasizing the apathy, ignorance, incompetence, and/or authoritarian inclinations of ordinary citizens. Elite or revisionist theories have urged a drastic attenuation of the participatory commitments of classical democratic theory in light of this evidence. Defenders of classical democratic theory have often accepted this evidence as substantially accurate, staking their hopes upon future possibilities for the development of mass political competence in the democratically reconstituted structures of a “participatory society.” This article suggests that a critique of revisionist democratic theory can be developed solely on the basis of currently available findings. After reviewing an important body of evidence, we conclude that the distribution of political competence between mass and elite is far less unequal than has been assumed by revisionist proponents of elite democratic theory and conceded by their participatory critics.