DEMOCRACY1995). Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet
Union and its affiliated states, and the full expo-
sure of the failures of those regimes, such an
extreme view has been almost entirely rejected.
The common understanding of democracy as
participation by members or citizens in the deci-
sion making of an organization or society still
leaves considerable room for dispute. Two issues
are central: First, who are, or should be, consid-
ered members of the society? Second, what does,
or should, constitute a minimum level of control
over decision making by members for a system to
be thought of as democratic? In short, how much
participation is necessary for a system to be demo-
cratic? These questions are not simply matters of
empirical observation of the world, but also mat-
ters for moral and political philosophy.
Three additional factors add to the difficulty
of approaching democracy as a field of sociologi-
cal research. First, analysts of democracy all too
often use different definitions of democracy, or
fail to define democracy clearly. Democratic sys-
tems of governance can be characterized by many
attributes—frequency of member participation,
the form of member participation, and so forth.
Establishing whether a particular system of gov-
ernance is democratic, involves making decisions
about which attributes are essential to a democrat-
ic system. Where there is no specific definition of
democracy or where definitions conflict, evalu-
ating research on democracy can be tasking
(Macpherson 1972).
A second factor increasing the difficulty of
this subject matter is that democracy is a system of
governance found in many different kinds of
collectivities, including states, formal organizations,
and informal groups. It is thus necessary to be
cautious in applying models, findings, and rela-
tionships across different types of collectivities.
When general propositions about democracy are
advanced, it is important to evaluate those propo-
sitions at multiple levels of analysis.
A third difficulty is that social scientists are
interested in democracy not just for its own sake,
but also because it is thought to be associated with
other critical issues. Many important questions
involve considerations of democracy: What is the
effect of democracy on the success of organiza-
tions and nation-states? Does democracy promote
individual liberty? What is the effect of democracy
on income inequality and social stratification? What
is the relationship between democracy and civil
society? Can market economies prosper in the
absence of democracy? All these and more force
sociologists to consider the consequences, as well
as the causes, of democracy.While the difficulties of studying democracy
are daunting, much significant work has been
done in this field. Democracy has been studied as
an outcome and as a cause, and has been studied at
both the level of the nation-state, and at the level of
the organization.To begin with, there is work in the sociology of
democracy on the question of who is or should be
members or citizens of a democratic polity. Most
systems commonly thought to be democratic have
throughout history excluded some portion of those
subject to the will of the democracy from participa-
tion in the decision-making process. Such exclu-
sion has occurred on the basis of race, sex, income,
relationship to property, criminal status, mental
health, religion, age, and other characteristics.
While use of many of these categories as a justifica-
tion for excluding individuals from participation
has declined in recent times, others remain, and
there is continuing disagreement about the moral
and political bases for excluding or including spe-
cific groups or categories of individuals. Migrant
workers in Western Europe, for example, are sub-
ject to the action of the state on a long-term basis
and yet remain excluded from full political partici-
pation in those states (Brubaker 1989). At the level
of the organization, there are individuals affected
by the decisions of the organization who may have
little or no say in the decisions that affect them.
These can include individuals both outside the
organization (‘‘stakeholders’’) and inside the or-
ganization. Regarding affected individuals outside
the organization, there are occasional movements
to increase the power of stakeholders over the
decisions of the organization (Nader, Green, and
Seligman 1976). While unsuccessful at a general
level, there has been a shift toward permitting