Schumpeter redefined democracy as competitive elite rule via periodic elections

Evidence

What needs scrutinizing, though, is the reason for this renewed interest in deliberation, as well as its current modalities. One explanation has certainly to do with the problems facing democratic societies today. Indeed, one proclaimed aim of deliberative democrats is to offer an alternative to the under~ standing of democracy which has become dominant in the second half of the twentieth century, the ‘aggregative model’. Such a model was initiated by Joseph Schumpeter’s seminal work of 1947, Capitalism. Soci4limJ and Democracy, I which argued that, with the development of mass democracy, popular sovereignty as understood by the classical model of democracy had become inadequate. A new understanding of democracy was needed, putting the emphasis on aggregation of preferences, taking place through political parties for which people would have the capacity to vote at regular intervals. Hence Schumpeter’s proposal to define democracy as the system in which people have the opponunity of accepting or rejecting their leaders thanks to a competitive electOral process. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 376

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the ‘aggregative model’ of democracy originating in Schumpeter as preference aggregation through electoral competition.
• XREF: connects to: Authoritarian party organizations paradoxically produced skilled elites that won democratic competition — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past: The…, 139; Officeholder domination and early electoral focus drive success under genuine competition. — John T. Ishiyama, Party Organization and the Political…, 91; Authoritarian-era party practices can later produce democratic competence — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past: The…, 122 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Schumpeter predicted socialism via competition’s centralizing effects, not capital’s contradictions #expands (0.80) — Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 949
• Multi-party democratization can proceed peacefully when ruling elites accept defeat and step aside #exemplifies (0.75) — Johan Brosché and Hanne Fjelde and Kristine Höglund, Electoral violence and the legacy of…, 66
• Centralized parties with experienced elites adapted best to postcommunist elections. #exemplifies (0.75) — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past, 71
• Officeholder domination and early electoral focus drive success under genuine competition. #corroborates (0.74) — John T. Ishiyama, Party Organization and the Political…, 91
• Authoritarian party organizations paradoxically produced skilled elites that won democratic competition #exemplifies (0.72) — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past, 139
• Authoritarian-era party practices can later produce democratic competence #exemplifies (0.72) — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past, 122