Does democracy have borders?
In this document, we question the borders of democracy that requires one to think in two dimensions. First of all, the absence of borders would imply one to assume the existence of a single democracy for everyone, and thus establish an idea of a universal democracy. This universal nature also invites one to study the extension of the democratic principles.
In this case, it would not be either a "democracy for all? but rather about a universalization of the democratic procedures. Additionally, it will also take into account the internal situation in the states from a "cosmopolitan point of view?. The following questions will be answered in this document. Are such extensions compatible? If the fall of the Soviet Union operated a transnational extension of commercial liberal space, does democracy follow the same path as a concept of an effective practice? Is it not irreducibly attached to the official framework or at least to the existence of temporal, social and/or cultural terminals?
Like Rome after the destruction of Carthage, the Western democracies lost their last opponent with the collapse of the Soviet world. Like Francis Fukuyama who, during a conference, equated democracy with the end of history, many thinkers were eager to conclude the victory of liberal democracy and the socialist state as all forms of "private corporations". This victory would constitute a triumph of democracy by default, by exhaustion of alternative models.
Besides the opening of the Eastern States, this trend is confirmed by the universal development of new practices. The universalization of human rights in the creation of The Hague International Criminal Court is through the gradual institutionalization of the right of humanitarian intervention at the international level.
This brief factual overview captures the two faces of democracy. Firstly, democracy as a form of government refers to the system of state organization where power is concentrated in the hands of one or a few but belongs to all, or at least the majority of the citizen body. Beyond this definition of "functional" and to resume the distinction drawn by Norberto Bobbio, democracy also means a kind of ideal and more or less teleological purpose, that of equality between all citizens. This ideal of the greatest possible participation of the governed in political decisions is well defined by Hans Kelsen, for whom "democracy is the tendency to identify the rulers and the ruled."
The developments raised further would then enter as a geographical expansion of procedures that is a deepening of the principle of democracy, based on the progressive universalization of citizenship. Indeed, by definition and by nature, democracy can endure no bounds or boundaries. Legitimized by the search for the common good, the generality of its objective cannot rely on the exclusion because when it is partial, interest ceases to be common.
However, it is clear that the proliferation of the democratic label, the claim of electoral procedures adhering to the transparency requirements of the organization of power "for the people and by the people" went hand in hand with the challenge of the legality of these mechanisms.