By Alexandra Medzibrodszky
This op-ed explores the study of democracy in global political thought and theory, arguing for a need to rethink entrenched frameworks and better understand diverse ways of political thinking. It examines high-level key challenges in terminology, methodology, translations, and collaboration, arguing for the need for interdisciplinary approaches and structural changes in academia to promote diverse perspectives on democracy.
Alexandra Medzibrodszky is the Editor for the “History of Ideas” section at the Review of Democracy.
We currently lack an inclusive understanding of democracy, overlooking much of the richness in intellectual history and diverse political imaginations from different cultures. Studying democracy in global political thought and theory could decenter our understanding of democracy by exploring broader questions about the mutual exchange between political traditions as well as understanding diverse ways of political thinking. These inquiries should not be understood as mere academic exercises but as urgent calls to rethink entrenched frameworks and engage intellectual traditions beyond the canon.
This op-ed explores key questions that arise when examining democracy through a global lens. I offer high-level insights into terminology, methodology, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. I argue that we need a global perspective to understand the past and present of democracy, and that intellectual historians and political theorists are especially well-suited to collaborate in exploring democracy within global political thought and theory.
I am neither the first nor likely the last to make such a call. At RevDem, our team has been reflecting on our approaches and editorial processes in recent months and has striven to become more open to the world outside of Europe and North America and so more relevant across the world’s continents. Importantly, the Review of Democracy has appointed four new global editors integrated into the Global Forum on Democracy and Development project, coordinated by our host institution, the CEU Democracy Institute.
“What’s in a name?” Navigating Terminology and Geographies
One of the first hurdles to pass when exploring democracy from a global perspective is terminology.
Do we refer to our field as “non-Western democratic thought,” “global democratic thought,” or “democracy in global intellectual history”? These are just some of the potential candidates, with each term carrying implications of geographic boundaries—both real and imagined—and the narratives they reinforce.
Terms like “non-Western” risk perpetuating an East-West or West-Global South binary, as highlighted by scholars like Loubna El Amine, who has argued for a shift from such spatial dichotomies to temporal frameworks such as modern and pre-modern. Such an approach can underscore our shared condition of modernity and avoid essentializing distinctions.
However, ignoring the historical relevance of spatial categories risks erasing the role they have played in shaping political thought worldwide. Civilizational discourses have often relied on such constructs, making them integral to the intellectual history we seek to understand. As Andrew March recently highlighted, modern thinkers from across the globe often engage with Western thought, demonstrating how these traditions mutually inform and shape one another. Discussions about terminology will continue, but what truly matters is that scholars interested in exploring ideas about democracy from a global perspective can connect and collaborate.
Comparative Political Theory (CPT) and Comparative Political Thought offer valuable lenses for this approach. Fred Dallmayr, an American philosopher and political theorist and a prominent figure in CPT, argued that the field is dialogical and hermeneutical, requiring multilingualism and cultural sensitivity to foster meaningful engagement between diverse traditions. CPT and Comparative Political Thought grapple with the questions of how to study political thinking in diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, often emphasizing the need to reflect on the power dynamics inherent in spatial categorizations like “East” and “West.”
The legacies of colonialism and Eurocentrism weigh heavily on political theory, and comparative approaches offer valuable tools to critically examine how knowledge is produced and framed. In their A Democratic Case for Comparative Political Theory, Melissa S. Williams and Mark E. Warren explored how comparative political theory can bridge cultural and intellectual divides in the context of globalization, contributing to the emergence of global “publics” and enriching deliberative democratic practices. They argued that globalization necessitates a broader engagement with “non-Western political thought” to address shared vulnerabilities and foster mutual intelligibility.
“Is this really political thought?” Expanding Methodologies and Source Bases
Questions of source selection and methodology often lead to what I call the “Is this really political thought?” conundrum.
Western frameworks frequently define political thought in terms of formal institutions and concepts, sidelining alternative modes of expression, and are reluctant to recognize them as legitimate objects of study within the field of the history of political thought. Yet, when explored in a global framework, political thought appears less compartmentalized and may manifest itself, among other fields, in literature, theology, philosophy, and even architecture. Leigh Jenco underscored that we should pay attention to non-verbal expressions of ritual, music, and dance as well when studying global political thought.
Expanding our understanding of democracy requires recognizing alternative forms of expression.
Farah Godrej, for instance, stressed the importance of treating non-Western sources not as case studies to answer Western-centric questions but as legitimate foundations for new theoretical frameworks. This shift requires methodological openness, allowing scholars to reimagine the conceptual apparatus of political theory.
Such an approach also demands reflexivity. Researchers must interrogate their positionality and immerse themselves in the contexts they study. Godrej’s notion of “self-dislocation” underscores the importance of stepping outside of one’s intellectual comfort zone. This engagement with alterity is essential for developing a better understanding of democracy and democratic thought in a global context.
What Do We Need? Translations, Teaching, and Collaboration
To advance the study of democracy in global political thought and theory, we must also address structural barriers.
A significant challenge is the lack of translations of what might be considered foundational global texts. Without being able to access crucial works, scholars risk perpetuating an incomplete and biased understanding of political thinking in the past and present.
Canon formation is equally important. Expanding the canon to include figures like Gandhi, Kang Youwei, and Sayyid Qutb is certainly a step forward, but such acts of inclusion must be performed thoughtfully to avoid tokenism. The renowned Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought series—which claims to “make available all the most important texts in the history of political thought, from ancient Greece to the twentieth century, from throughout the world and from every political tradition”—reflects significant gaps when it comes to non-Western or even Central and Eastern European political thinkers. Having said that, additions since 2020, such as Kumazawa Banzan: Governing the Realm and Bringing Peace to All Below Heaven and Ibn Khaldūn: Political Thought, signal a positive change. Their publication marks an important step forward in diversifying the canon. They also highlight the ongoing need for broader and more inclusive efforts to bring diverse voices and perspectives into the series.
Education needs to play a crucial role in our endeavors. Teaching global political thought and theory requires awareness of the historical and philosophical contexts that have shaped the various traditions. While there is legitimate concern about oversimplifying ideas, exposing students to diverse perspectives can inspire curiosity and deeper engagement in and beyond the classroom. Books such as Comparative Political Thought: Theorizing Practices (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Political Theory (2017),Deparochializing Political Theory (2020), and the upcoming Political Theory: A Global and Comparative Introduction (2025) can help improve education by providing new conceptual and methodological apparatuses.
Collaboration should be another cornerstone of our efforts. Interdisciplinary approaches have the potential to bridge the gap between political theory, intellectual history, and other relevant fields such as anthropology and religious studies, enriching our understanding of democracy and political traditions. Based on the workshops we organized at the CEU in 2017 and 2018, it seems that intellectual historians and political theorists are particularly well-positioned to collaborate effectively when exploring democracy in global political thought and theory.
Intellectual historians bring a deep understanding of the historical and cultural conditions in which ideas emerge, while political theorists—often the most devoted to exploring global contexts within the discipline of Political Science—offer analytical tools to study their broader relevance in contemporary discourse. The resulting interdisciplinary synthesis has the potential to yield a richer and more comprehensive framework to understand democracy.
A Call for Openness and Transformation
Studying democracy in global political thought and theory is not merely an academic exercise. It is meant to be a transformative process that challenges entrenched paradigms and fosters mutual learning.
As Leigh Jenco suggests, the West has much to learn from non-Western traditions as sources of original theoretical insights. This requires openness, reflexivity, and a willingness to engage with alternative perspectives, concepts, and ways of thinking. The academic landscape must also adapt to support these initiatives more meaningfully. Mainstream conferences and associations are still too often reluctant to embrace global approaches, which in turn raises the question of whether we, scholars interested in global political thought and theory, shouldn’t create more alternative spaces for collaboration dedicated specifically to global approaches in political thought and theory in the vein of the Association for Global Political Thought.
Ultimately, the endeavor is about more than expanding the canon or redefining categories. It is about reimagining the possibilities of democracy itself, creating a space where diverse traditions can coexist and inform one another. When doing so, we not only enrich our understanding of political thought but also take a step towards a more inclusive and equitable intellectual landscape that is committed to the understanding of democracy in all its diversity.
Let’s rethink democracy together.
Join us on December 4, 2024, at 10 AM EST / 4 PM CET for our online roundtable on “Democracy in Global Political Thought and Theory” to discuss some of these issues with experts in the field.
