Seeing the city and democracy: A commentary

Abstract

When the idea of democracy went through its revival in the early modern period, it was eventually attached to the ideal of the state – a legal order that restrained popular enthusiasm and that could exist on any scale. The common assumption was that any viable political order had to be on a relatively large scale if it was to persist in the face of external challenges and deal effectively with modern problems. The implication was that it had to transcend the city. Beveridge and Koch challenge these modern assumptions, suggesting that urbanization re-establishes the connection between democracy and urban life. Although they focus on the stakes and conditions of a form of life that transcends both city and state, they still insist that we should see democracy ‘like a city’. Does seeing democracy like a city help us understand how such issues might be resolved democratically? I hope so, but my hopes are often sorely tested.