Schmitter, Philippe and Terry Lynn Karl. "What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not". Journal of Democracy, Vol.2, No.3 (1991): 75-88.

Schmitter, Philippe and Terry Lynn Karl. "What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not". Journal of Democracy, Vol.2, No.3 (1991): 75-88.

• "Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives" (76).
• A healthy democracy contains an emphasis on the public sphere, or civil society, although some state intervention does not necessarily make a state less democratic. This means that liberal and socialist democracies can be equally democratic, just in different ways (77).
• Traditionally, democracies shunned competition or any form of decision-making which undermined consensus, and was extremely hostile to factionalism. This attitude began to change in the late 1790s with the publication of the Federalist Papers, and James Madison's defense of factionalism as a necessary evil (77-78).
• Modern democracies accept competition, but have different methods for managing it. The most popular is through regular elections, often buttressed by additional requirements that those elections guarantee majority rule (78).
• Many modern democracies require the protections of minority rights as a central component of democratic rule, allowing the general principle of majoritarianism to be modify if the interests of minorities are threatened. Different systems have different methods of this, including federalism, grand coalitions, minority mandates, and corporatism (79).
• Cooperation towards a common national interest is a necessary component of a democratic system, with that common interest usually being elucidated through dialogue in civil society, including political parties (79-80).
• Although the exact criteria for a democracy are a heavily disputed topic, Dr. Robert Dahl provides a basic minimum of necessary features: legislation by elected officials, frequent and fair elections, universal franchise and right to stand for office, political freedom of expression, diverse and free press, and the right of association (81).
• A number of scholars have modified this definition with a qualifier about the ability of elected officials to exercise their powers without fear of coercion, an important traits which makes the quasi-military regimes of Latin America and Pakistan undemocratic (81).
• The social contract that underpins democracy is that the victors agree to not bar opposition from future participation in return for the opposition and the populace respect the mandate of the victorious group (82).
• Democracies have a core of policies which are considered 'normal' and reasonable, and politicians almost never move beyond that core. The limits of acceptable political choice vary between polities, but they exert a political influence in all democracies (82-83).
• There are a number of means of political organization that are not undemocratic, but differ between countries. The authors argues that democratic states might disagree on the necessity of consensus, full participation, equal access, government responsiveness, absolute democracy, role of parliament, political pluralism, federalism, and number of checks (83-84).
• "Democracies are not necessarily more efficient economically than other forms of government. Their rates of aggregate growth, savings, and investment may be no better than those of nondemocracies" (85).
• The authors add that democracies are also not administratively efficient, responsive, less corrupt, or more organized than autocratic states (85).