Democracy and communication
In terms of our three models – centralisation, corporatism and
pluralism – we can see the evidence we have reviewed provides some
support for each of the patterns of communication we suggested they
entailed. Centralisation seems supported by the evidence of cen-
tralised national parties and a centralised communication system
mainly concerned with ‘broadcasting’. Corporatism is supported by
the evidence of a well-established pattern of legislative consultation
with certain favoured pressure groups. Whilst we have found less
evidence in the pattern of established institutions of political com-
munication for pluralism, we saw that the legitimacy of consultation
before decisions are taken and of any group to organise and protest
is accepted. We might well have elaborated on this theme by
emphasising a tradition of sturdy independence and well-established
right to petition parliament and other decision makers in many
liberal democracies. What seems inadequate to the authors are the
opportunities for less well-established groups to have a real chance of
influence.Recommended reading
Arblaster, Anthony, 2002, Democracy, 3rd edn, Buckingham, Open
University Press
Excellent short introduction to different concepts of democracy.
Bogdanor, Vernon, 1988, Constitutions in Democratic Politics,
Aldershot, Gower
Broad survey of constitutionalism in many contemporary
democracies.
Budge, Ian, 1996, The New Challenge of Direct Democracy, Oxford,
Basil Blackwell
Considers a vision of how new technology can lead to direct
democracy.
Carter, April and Stokes, Geoffrey, 2002, Democratic Theory Today,
Cambridge, Polity Press
Review of contemporary challenges to democracy and the
response of political theorists to them.204 DEMOCRACY