Journals / International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

Inclusion and exclusion in democracies: A theoretical comparison of John M. McCormick and Iris M. Young

Pages
257–262
Publication Date
2019-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article compares and contrasts these two theoretical approaches to reform democracy in a way that would deliver its promise as a system of comprehensive policy making process

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Elections, as one of the main pillars of modern democracies, are necessary but not sufficient condition for ideal form of representative democracy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:McCormick and Iris M.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article compares and contrasts these two theoretical approaches to reform democracy in a way that would deliver its promise as a system of comprehensive policy making process
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Demoracy · Inclusion · Exclusion

Abstract

Elections, as one of the main pillars of modern democracies, are necessary but not sufficient condition for ideal form of representative democracy. John M. McCormick and Iris M. Young problematize the democracy understanding solely based on fair and competitive elections. While they both agree on the problem of modern democracies as executed by wealthy elites, there is a divergence in their proposed solutions. While McCormick sees the problem as inequalities between classes and proposes excluding the wealthy elites from dominating the political representation and decision making, Young proposes an inclusive approach that empowers marginalized groups. This article compares and contrasts these two theoretical approaches to reform democracy in a way that would deliver its promise as a system of comprehensive policy making process

🔖

Cite This Article

Sen, O. (2019). Inclusion and exclusion in democracies: A theoretical comparison of John M. McCormick and Iris M. Young. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 257–262. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.581365

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory 37 (3).
  2. Fung, Archon. 2005. “Deliberation Before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World.” Political Theory 33 (3).
  3. Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  4. McCormick, John P. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
  5. McCormick, John P. 2012. “Response to Jeffry Winters’s Review of Machiavellian Democracy”. Perspectives on Politics 10 (1).
  6. Olson, J. 2004. The Abolition of White Democracy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
  7. Pateman, C. 1976. Participation and Democracy Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Winters, Jeffrey. 2012. Review: Machiavellian Democracy. Perspectives on Politics 10 (1).
  9. Young, Iris M. 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.