The ideological turn of democracy and its challenges according to David Held

Soltani, Mohammad; Tohidfam, Mohammad; Bakhshaish Ardestani, Ahmad; Amini, Ali Akbar

doi:10.30465/os.2025.53264.2075

The ideological turn of democracy and its challenges according to David Held

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Mohammad Soltani ¹

Mohammad Tohidfam ²

Ahmad Bakhshaish Ardestani ³

Ali akbar Amini ⁴

¹ PhD Student in Political Science (Political Thought Orientation), Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

² Professor of Political Science, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author)

³ Professor of Political Science, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

10.30465/os.2025.53264.2075

Abstract

Introduction
From ancient Greece to modern times, democracy has been understood as the ideal of collective participation and popular sovereignty. It has traditionally been associated with political equality, public deliberation, and popular control over political authority within clearly defined political communities.
    As a normative ideal, democracy promises self-rule, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights through representative institutions and legal frameworks. For much of modern political history, these democratic principles have been institutionalized primarily within the boundaries of the nation-state.
    However, in the twenty-first century, democracy faces new and complex challenges that increasingly exceed the institutional and conceptual capacity of the nation-state. Processes of globalization have transformed the structure of political power, relocating key economic, political, and regulatory decisions beyond national borders. In this context, David Held adopts a critical perspective and conceptualizes democracy not merely as a form of government, but as an ethical and global project.   He argues that globalization, the concentration of economic power, the expansion of transnational institutions, and the erosion of national sovereignty have created a growing gap between democratic ideals and political realities. This gap has significantly reduced the ability of national democracies to respond effectively to global political and economic processes. The resulting mismatch between the scope of power and the reach of democratic accountability constitutes a central problem in contemporary democratic theory and practice.
Materials & Methods
This study adopts a qualitative, theoretical, and analytical approach based on documentary and library research. The primary sources include David Held’s major works on democracy, globalization, and cosmopolitan governance, alongside key writings by other influential democratic theorists concerned with legitimacy, power, and global political structures. Secondary sources consist of scholarly analyses that engage with Held’s ideas from deliberative, institutional, and critical perspectives.
    The research employs thematic and comparative analysis to examine core concepts such as globalization, democratic legitimacy, non-elective power structures, sovereignty, and global justice. Through this method, the study systematically explores how global transformations have reshaped democratic theory and practice, and how these changes challenge traditional models of nation-state democracy.
    This analytical framework provides a conceptual basis for evaluating Held’s proposal of cosmopolitan democracy as a normative and institutional response to the contemporary crisis of democracy.
Discussion & Result
The analysis identifies several interrelated challenges confronting contemporary democracy under conditions of globalization. First, the ideologization of democracy has transformed democratic discourse into an instrument for maintaining political power, often detached from genuine participation and public accountability.
    Democratic ideals are frequently invoked rhetorically while substantive decision-making remains insulated from popular control.
Second, non-elective power structures—including global financial institutions, multinational corporations, and transnational media networks—exercise significant influence over political outcomes without being subject to democratic oversight. These actors shape economic policies, public opinion, and political agendas in ways that undermine democratic equality and transparency.
    Third, globalization and interdependence, manifested in economic dependency, environmental crises, technological change, and large-scale migration, have restricted national sovereignty and reduced the effectiveness of traditional democratic mechanisms. Fourth, a legitimacy crisis has emerged as key political decisions are increasingly transferred to supranational institutions, weakening citizens’ trust in national governments and representative bodies.
    In addition, ineffective political representation has resulted from the growing dominance of economic elites and media power over political parties and parliaments. Corporate capitalism further concentrates wealth and authority in transnational corporations, disrupting the balance between state power and society.
   The weakening of the public sphere through media monopolies and algorithmic communication mechanisms limits rational democratic discourse and informed public deliberation. Finally, global problems without democratic governance—such as climate change, financial instability, and pandemics—highlight the absence of accountability and participation at the global level. Held interprets these developments as evidence of a structural disconnection between power and accountability and argues for the reconstruction of democracy beyond national boundaries through cosmopolitan democratic institutions.
Conclusion
The study concludes that the contemporary crisis of democracy is not merely institutional, but also conceptual and ethical. Democracy remains meaningful only when it is linked to social justice, political equality, and effective accountability across all levels of governance. David Held’s theory of cosmopolitan democracy offers a coherent and systematic response to the challenges posed by globalization, transnational power, and growing inequality.
   Although the full realization of cosmopolitan democracy faces significant political and institutional obstacles, it provides a realistic normative framework for rethinking democratic governance beyond the nation-state and for expanding democratic participation in an increasingly interconnected world.

Keywords

Cosmopolitan democracy

David Held

ideological crisis of democracy

global democratic public law

liberalism

Archibugi, D. (2008). The global commonwealth of citizens: Toward cosmopolitan democracy.Princeton University Press.

Bashiriyeh, H. (2001). Dars-hāyi darbareh-ye demokrasī va jame‘eh-ye madani. Tehran: Nashr-e Negah-e Mo‘aser. [In Persian]

Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights.Polity Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.).

Dahl, R. A. (2010). Darbareh-ye demokrasī (H. Fesharaki, Trans.). Tehran: Shirazeh. [In Persian]

Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics: Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity Press.

Emam-Jomehzadeh, J., & Morandi, Z. (2020). Olawiyat-e falsafeh bar demokrasī dar tahlil-e tajrobeh-hā-ye dolathā-ye haftom va hashtom-e Iran. Dolat-Pazhuhi, 24 (Winter), 141–181. [In Persian]

Garavand, H. (2024). Moruri bar demokrasī va chalesh-hā-ye mo‘aser.In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Transformative Ideas. [In Persian]

Ghasemi, A. (2024). Chalesh-e tarikhi-ye tahaghogh-e haqq bar demokrasī: Monāqesheh-ye nazari-ye nokhbeh-gerāyan.Faslnameh-ye Motale‘at-e Hoquq-e Omumi-ye Daneshgah-e Tehran, 54(2), 1321–1343. [In Persian]

Habermas, J. (2001). Jahani-shodan va ayandeh-ye demokrasī: Manzumeh-ye pasā-melli (K. Pouladi, Trans.).Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz. [In Persian]

Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation: Political essays. MIT Press.

Held, D. (1987). Model-hā-ye demokrasī (A. Mokhber, Trans.).Tehran: Roshangaran va Motale‘at-e Zanan. [In Persian]

Held, D. (1993). Prospects for democracy: North, South, East, West. Stanford University Press.

Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Polity Press.

Held, D. (2003). Jahani-shodan va mokhālefan-e ān (E. Sabeti, Trans.).Tehran: Ghoghnoos. [In Persian]

Held, D. (2007). Globalization/anti-globalization: Beyond the great divide. Polity Press.

Held, D. (2010). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Polity Press.

Held, D. (2013). Political theory and the modern state: Essays on state, power, and democracy. Polity Press.

Held, D., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). American power in the twenty-first century. Polity Press.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2007). Globalization/anti-globalization. Polity Press.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2009). Nazariyeh-hā-ye jahani-shodan (M. Karbasian, Trans.).Tehran: Nashr-e Cheshmeh. [In Persian]

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2003). The global transformations reader: An introduction to the globalizationdebate. Polity Press.

Hosseini, R. (2019). Hanjār-hā va nazariyeh-hā-ye demokrasī. Tehran: Pazhuheshgah-e Olum-e Ensani. [In Persian]

Jafari, M. (2017). Naqd-e nazariyeh-ye demokrasī-ye jahan-vatani-ye David Held. Faslnameh-ye Olum-e Siasi, 24, 45–68. [In Persian]

Kazemi, M. (2016). Nahād-gerāyi va demokrasī.Tehran: Nashr-e Daneshgahi. [In Persian]

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Sage Publications.

Macpherson, C. B. (2000). Jahan-e vaghe‘i-ye demokrasī (A. Ma‘navi-Tehrani, Trans.).Tehran: Agah. [In Persian]

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.).Sage Publications.

Polity Press.

Sabbagh, A. (2015). Barrasi-ye mavane‘-e tahaghogh-e demokrasī-ye jahan-vatani bar asas-e nahād-gerāyi-ye jadid. Siasat (Tarbiat Modares University), 7, 101–118. [In Persian]

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Siasat-e Khareji, 16(3), 609–632. [In Persian]

Tavassoli, G.-A. (2011). Jahani-shodan va nazariyeh-hā-ye jame‘eh-shenakhti-ye mo‘aser.Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2002, Autumn). Jahani-shodan-e demokrasī va gozar be nazariyeh-ye neo-pluralism-e dolat.

Tavhidfam, M. (2006). Gozar be demokrasī-ye jahan-vatani. Daneshnameh: Journal of Advanced Doctoral Research, 63, 69–89. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2007, Summer). Sakhtār-hā-ye ayandeh-ye mellat–dolat-hā va chalesh-hā-ye fararuy-e ānhā. Pazhuheshnameh-ye Olum-e Siasi, 2(7), 1–23. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2010). Demokrasī-ye jahan-vatani va naqshe ān dar vaqe‘garāyi-ye demokratik. InProceedings of the International Conference on World Philosophy Day. Tehran: Mo’asseseh-ye Pazhuheshi-ye Hekmat va Falsafeh-ye Iran. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2010, Summer). Gheyr-ideoloji-shodan-e andisheh-hā-ye siasi dar payan-e qarn-e bistom. Siasat-e Khareji, 24(2), 595–616. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2012, Winter). Amuzeh-hā va sakhtār-hā-ye demokrasī-ye jahan-shahri az sath-hā-ye melli ta jahani. Pazhuhesh-hā-ye Ravabet-e Beyn-ol-Melal, 2, 155–177. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2013, Spring). Demokrasī-ye jahan-shahri: Gozar az demokrasī-hā-ye dolat-mehvar be nezam-e demokratik-e jahani. Rahyaft-hā-ye Siasi-ye Beyn-ol-Melali, 33, 137–157. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2018). Hokmrani-ye khub va nezam-e ta’min-e ejtemā‘i. Tehran: Entešārāt-e Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian]

Tavhidfam, M. (2019). Dolat va demokrasī dar ‘asr-e jahani-shodan. Tehran: Entešārāt-e Rouzaneh. [In Persian]