Logo

Theory, Practice and Challenges of Democracy

Code: 45819
Credits: 5
2026/2027
Degree programme Type Course
Political Science OB 1

Contact lecturer

Name :
John Robert Etherington
Email :
john.etherington@uab.cat

Teaching staff

Eva Anduiza Perea
Enrique Hernandez Perez

Group languages

You can consult this information at the end of the document.

Prerequisites

For students new to Political Science, the following texts provide good background for some of the themes that will be dealt with in this module:

  • Held, D. (various editions) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Diamond L. & M. F. Plattner, eds., (2009), Democracy. A Reader, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Dahl, R.A., Shapiro, I., Cheibub J.A. (2003), eds., The Democracy Sourcebook, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.

Objectives

The purpose of this module is to present some of the main debates and approaches to understanding liberal democracy as these have developed over time in the West, and to this end the module is divided into three main parts:

  • Part one analyses the different ways that democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular have been understood from a theoretical perspective;
  • Part two focusses on the current state of liberal democracies from an empirical perspective, with particular emphasis on the process of ‘backsliding’;
  • Part three analyses liberal democracy from the perspective of gender politics.


By the end of the module, students are expected to demonstrate:

  • a thorough understanding of a wide range of theoretical, methodological and empirical approaches to the study of themes related to democracy and democratic regimes;
  • a capacity to critically analyse such contributions;
  • an ability to communicate these capacities in both written and verbal form.


Learning outcomes

  • CA06 (Conduct independent research and work productively on group projects.) Conduct independent research and work productively on group projects.
  • CA07 (Analyse and apply knowledge to contemporary democratic challenges from a comparative and critical perspective, reflecting on the normative dimensions of democracy and citizenship.) Analyse and apply knowledge to contemporary democratic challenges from a comparative and critical perspective, reflecting on the normative dimensions of democracy and citizenship.
  • CA08 (Apply knowledge of the normative dimensions of democracy and citizenship, including issues of inclusion, representation and justice, preparing students for further study focusing on advanced comparative politics and current democratic challenges (populism, inequality, disinformation) from a comparative perspective.) Apply knowledge of the normative dimensions of democracy and citizenship, including issues of inclusion, representation and justice, preparing students for further study focusing on advanced comparative politics and current democratic challenges (populism, inequality, disinformation) from a comparative perspective.
  • KA05 (Compare the main theoretical frameworks for the study of contemporary democracy, with a critical evaluation of their application in different comparative political contexts.) Compare the main theoretical frameworks for the study of contemporary democracy, with a critical evaluation of their application in different comparative political contexts.
  • KA06 (Describe the main empirical trends identified in contemporary studies, such as democratic backsliding, hybrid regimes and global patterns of democratic resilience and erosion, drawing on comparative data and case studies.) Describe the main empirical trends identified in contemporary studies, such as democratic backsliding, hybrid regimes and global patterns of democratic resilience and erosion, drawing on comparative data and case studies.
  • KA07 (Describe the qualitative and quantitative research methods used in the study of democracy and citizenship.) Describe the qualitative and quantitative research methods used in the study of democracy and citizenship.
  • SA05 (Interpret, critique and summarise theoretical and empirical literature on democracy and citizenship from a comparative perspective.) Interpret, critique and summarise theoretical and empirical literature on democracy and citizenship from a comparative perspective.
  • SA06 (Communicate complex ideas clearly and persuasively in academic and policy documents.) Communicate complex ideas clearly and persuasively in academic and policy documents.

Contents

Theories of Democracy

  • Democracy in Classical Theory
  • Deliberative Democracy
  • Critiques of and Alternatives to Deliberative Democracy
  • Participatory Democracy


Does Democracy Really Work?

  • The State of Democracy
  • The Role of Citizens in Democratic Backsliding
  • Elites and Liberal Institutions


Gender, Politics and Democracy

  • Ontological, epistemological and conceptual debates
  • Women in politics: representation, quotas and violence
  • Gender gaps in attitudes and vote choice
  • Sexism and issue preferences


Learning activities and methodology

Title Hours ECTS Learning outcomes
Tutorials 20 0.8 CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05
Preparation of Assigned Readings 40 1.6 CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05
Lectures and Seminars 31.5 1.26 CA06, CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05
Preparation of Assignments 18 0.72 CA06, CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05, SA06

This course emphasizes active student participation in class, tutorials, and continuous assessment through the development and evaluation of assignments related to the different dimensions of the module.


Note: 15 minutes of a class will be reserved, within the calendar established by the center/degree, for students to complete the teacher performance evaluation and subject evaluation surveys.

Annotation: within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.

Assessment

Continuous assessment activities

Title Weight Hours ECTS Learning outcomes
In-Class Assignments 40% 12 0.48 CA06, CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05, SA06
Active Participation 10% 1 0.04 SA06
Final Exam 50% 2.5 0.1 CA07, CA08, KA05, KA06, KA07, SA05, SA06

The evaluation is divided into the following elements:


In-class assignments (40% overall grade): For each session, the respective instructor will specify a task or assignment that can take the form of group presentations and exercises, quizzes on assigned readings, small projects etc. Students will be graded on their best ten tasks/assignments out of twelve possible ones.


In-class participation (10%): students will be graded on their contributions to in-class debates and discussions.


Final exam (50%): Each instructor will specify one topic of interest related to their respective part of the module and will provide relevant readings (see below in the ‘Contents’ section). In November, students will be asked to choose one of the topics, which will distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis. The number of slots for each topic will be proportional to the number of sessions given in that part of the module. Students will then prepare the readings for their topic and will be given a specific question to complete on the day of the exam. The exam will take place on the 14th of December and will last 2 hours 30 minutes. For the exam, students will be allowed to bring printed material to assist them, but there will be no digital support allowed.

The exam will be graded using the following criteria:

  • Capacity to synthesize the relevant literature
  • Capacity to critically evaluate the relevant literature
  • Coherence of the argument
  • Originality


Use of AI/LLM: For this subject, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies is permitted exclusively in support tasks, such as bibliographic or information searches, text correction or translations, generating outlines or preliminary summaries, provided that they are reworked by students. Students must clearly identify which parts have been generated with this technology, specify the tools used and include a critical reflection on how these have influenced the process and the final result of the activity. The lack of transparency of the use of AI in this assessable activity will be considered a lack of academic honesty and may lead to a partial or total penalty in the grade of the activity, or greater sanctions inserious cases.

Plagiarism: As noted in the Students Guide, we are committed to avoiding plagiarism, and as such every effort is made to detect and punish such cases. Anti-plagiarism software will be used to check every submission.

Feedback: Comments on work will be available three weeks at the latest after submission. Please do not hesitate to contact the professors for this feedback.

Submission: Please submit your short essays and final essay through the Campus Virtual tasks section, where all graded submissions will be analyzed by the anti-plagiarism software.

Grading: All submissions will be graded with a numeric grade ranging from 0 to 10, being 10 the best grade.

Late submissions policy: A -1 point grade penalty will be applied for each day that a student is late with a graded submission.

Criteria for the “Not Assessable” grade: In accordance with point 9 of article 266 of the UAB Academic Regulations, a student will be classified as “Not Assessable” when they have not provided sufficient evidence of learning to allow for a guaranteed assessment. Within the framework of this module, it will be considered that there is insufficient evidence of assessment when the student has not submitted any continuous assessment activity or taken any test or exam.


Bibliography

MacPherson, C.W.B. (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: OUP.


Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism Democracy.


Dahl, R. (1973) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.


Habermas, J. (1994) “Three Models of Democracy”, Constellations, 1(1)


Cohen, Joshua (1989) "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (eds.), The Good Polity. Blackwell: New York.


Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


Fraser, Nancy (1990) "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy" Social Text, 25/26.


Mouffe, Chantal (2000) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.


Pateman, Carole. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Pateman, C. (2012) “Participatory Democracy Revisited”. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1):7-19.


Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Crouch, C. (2019) “Post-Democracy and Populism”, The Political Quarterly, 90: 124-137.


Mudde, C. (2021) 'Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism'. Government and Opposition, 56, p. 577-597.



Przeworski, Adam. 2024. “Who Decides What Is Democratic?” Journal of Democracy 35(3): 5–16.


Nord, Marina, Fabio Angiolillo, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2025. “State of the World 2024: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped?” Democratization 32(4): 839–64. doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2487825.


Svolik, Milan W. 2019. “Polarization versus Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 30(3): 20–32.


Krishnarajan, Suthan. 2023. “Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior.” American Political Science Review 117(2): 474–96.


Ferrer, Sergi, Enrique Hernández, Enrique Prada, and Damjan Tomic. 2025. “The Value of Liberal Democracy: Assessing Citizens’ Commitment to Democratic Principles.” European Journal of Political Research 64(4): 2018–38. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.70021.


Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2019. How Democracies Die. Crown.


Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2023. Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn, and Forge a Democracy for All. Random House.



Hekman, Susan. 1997. “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22(2): 341–65. doi:10.1086/495159.


Savolainen, Jukka, Patrick J. Casey, Justin P. McBrayer, and Patricia Nayna Schwerdtle. 2023. “Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 18(6): 1331–38. doi:10.1177/17456916221144988.


Phillips, Anne. 1998. «From a Politics of Ideas to a Politics of Presence?» In The Politics of Presence, ed. Anne Phillips. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/0198294158.003.0001.


Beckwith, Karen. 2014. «Plotting the Path from One to the Other: Women’s Interests and Political Representation». En Representation: The Case of Women, New York: Oxford University Press.


Shorrocks, Rosalind. 2021. Women, Men, and Elections: Policy Supply and Gendered Voting Behaviour in Western Democracies. New York.


Howell, Susan E., and Christine L. Day. 2000. ‘Complexities of the Gender Gap’. Journal of Politics 62(3): 858–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00036


Becker, Julia, and Chris Sibley. 2016. “Sexism.” In Handbook of Stereotyping Prejudice and Discrimination, New York, London: Psychology Press.


Gulczyński, Michał. 2026. «Sexism as a Predictor of Political Attitudes and Voting Behavior: A Systematic Review». Public Opinion Quarterly. doi:10.1093/poq/nfaf066.

Software

None

Course groups and languages

The information provided is provisional until November 30. After this date, you will be able to consult the language of each group through this link. To access the information, you will need to enter the course CODE