Abstract
There is reason to believe that the concepts of 'covenant' and 'contract' respectively denote two quite distinct approaches to democratic government. Democratic theory differentiates a wide range of types of democracy bearing nuanced labels to denote marginal variations. A broad historical approach, however, distinguishes two archetypal forms of democracy — the so-called 'classical' democracy and modern 'representative democracy'. Since the original classical democracy is characterized as 'direct democracy', under which all citizens have a direct part in ruling, a situation which can scarcely be envisaged under the modern pattern of territorial states, classical democracy is largely consigned to the irretrievable ancient world. Scarcely anywhere but in a few microstates could complex national government be conducted by assemblies of citizens. Moreover, there are moral reasons for distinguishing between ancient and modern, since the original direct democracies had no systematic mechanism for chastening legitimate authority.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-36 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association |
| Publication status | Published - 2005 |
| Event | APSA 2005: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association - Washington, United States of America Duration: 1 Sept 2005 → … |
Keywords
- Political Theory and Political Philosophy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Covenant and Contract: Religion, Constitutionalism, and Democracy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver