democracy and democratization strongostrongdonnells critique of.pdf

Draft paper subject to changes Buenos Aires, March 2012 Democracy and democratization: ODonnells Critique of procedural democracy To Guillermo ODonnell, my professor and dear friend1 Jorge Vargas Cullell Abstract ODonnell outlined the foundations of a new framework for comparative theories on democratization based upon a critique of procedural democracy. His was, though, a subtle and nuanced critique. He accepted democracy as a political concept, thus rejecting any attempt to frame it on substantive terms. At the same time, he broadened the concept by anchoring it to the notion of the citizen as a moral agent, thus shedding light into the non-regime dimensions of democracy. Based on his idea of democracy as an open-ended concept, in this article I reflect on the consequences on the notions of democratization and the quality of democracy. Introduction In his 2010 book, just after discussing the shortcommings of procedural minimalist definitions of democracy, Guillermo ODonnell makes an intriguing comment: los esfuerzos para definir la democracia desde Schumpeter hasta Dahl proveen una importante base para pensar la democracia como régimen pol ítico; un tema que queda por discutir es si estas definiciones se refieren a la democracia tout court o sólo a un aspecto de ella, la democracia política. (ODonnell 2010) : p.29 Interestingly enough, ODonnell does not systematically address this distinction between democracy as such and political democracy (or regime). He seems to imply that the latter is a species or an aspect of the former, the genre or totality. But we are kept waiting. For sure, he sharply criticizes narrow understandings of democracy that leave aside the complex interactions between the regime, the State and, crucially, the citizenry (composed of citizens as moral and political agents). Also, he strongly o