The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Depoliticizing Democracy
Abstract
Abstract.It is now widely accepted as an ideal that democracy should be as deliberative as possible. Democracy should not involve a tussle between different interest groups or lobbies in which the numbers matter more than the arguments. And it should not be a system in which the only arguments that matter are those that voters conduct in an attempt to determine where their private or sectional advantage lies. Democracy, it is said, should promote public deliberation among citizens and authorities as to what does best for the society as a whole and should elicit decision‐making on that basis. But the ideal of deliberative democracy has two components—the deliberative and the democratic—and often they pull apart. In this paper I look in the first section at a series of problems that arise on the deliberative front, arguing that their resolution requires various degrees of depoliticization. And then I ask in the second whether the depoliticizing responses that those problems require are antithetical to the ideal of democracy. I argue that they are not in tension with the ideal, if that ideal is cast in the relatively revisionary, two‐dimensional form that I favour.1
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,364
The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4782 · Cited by 1,239
Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government.
Kelly, E., & Pettit, P. (1999) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2998263 · Cited by 1,075
Self-citationDemocracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference
(1993) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173544 · Cited by 860
A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency
Pettit, P. N. (2001) · Cited by 635
Self-citationAggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002) · Economics and Philosophy · doi:10.1017/s0266267102001098 · Cited by 619
Self-citationJudgments of and by representativeness
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982) · Judgment under Uncertainty · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.007 · Cited by 603
Pettit, P. (2002) · doi:10.1093/0199251878.001.0001 · Cited by 261
Self-citationThe Virtual Reality of Homo Economicus
Pettit, P. N. (1995) · The Monist · doi:10.5840/monist199578322 · Cited by 134
Self-citation
Cited by
The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI
Birch, J. (2024) · doi:10.1093/9780191966729.001.0001 · Cited by 236
The New Ochlophobia?: Populism, Majority Rule, and Prospects for Democratic Republicanism
McCormick, J. P. (2019) · Republicanism and the Future of Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108630153.008 · Cited by 15
Birch, J. (2024) · The Edge of Sentience · doi:10.1093/9780191966729.003.0003 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Pettit, P.
- Venue
- Ratio Juris
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-25
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52-65
- ISSN
- 0952-1917 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9337
- OpenAlex
- W4238254087
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 12.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Depoliticizing Democracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00254.x
- The paper
- Pettit, P. (2004). Depoliticizing Democracy. Ratio Juris. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00254.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.