[JillVer]

Hi there I have a question for you all. I've looked into studying democracies in different countries, specifically developing countries but after reading many sources about the theories, have found myself a little confused. Definitions of procedural democracy have differed greatly in the sources, some declaring it a liberal democracy that focuses on individual rights, and others say it is merely a democracy on 'paper' meaning that it doesn't follow through in practice.

I'm just wondering your opinions on this so that I can get my bearings. Or is there a specific direction, scholar etc I should be looking to? Much appreciated!

[redcarpet]

Well a liberal democracy 'on paper' is for example, like Russia. All the procedures and rights are 'on paper' in their constitution. But they don't abide by it. Same as many African dictatorships, and the US of late.

[Preston Cole]

There is no such thing as liberal democracy. It implies representation of the interests of all, yet it is almost non-existent in that sense.

Other forms of democracy based on authoritarian leadership could be considered true democracies, like organic democracy (try translating it), where the interests of all are represented fairly based on the needs of the community, and when these interests are ignored, it's mostly because the needs of the organic community demand it.

[J Oswald]

"Liberal Democracy" is an idealist concept that can't really ever be reached, since there will always be interests that try and crowd out the individual liberties of the people. What we call "liberal democracies" today all have governments that in some way reach and either remove or distort the individual liberties of some people, with the difference being that in some countries the damage is less advanced than in others.