Abstract
In the concept of « consolidation of democracy », two aspects can lead to misunderstanding. Firstly, one can interrogate on the direction towards which such a consolidation is supposed to tend, as the word « consolidation » implies that democracy already exists, as something is bound to exist if it is in a consolidation phase. In other words, what is « more democracy » compared to « less democracy », or “basic democracy”? Secondly, the nature of democratic consolidation itself: is it only a phase of democratisation or a continuous process characterising democracy? Since the establishment of the first « modern » democracies at the end of the eighteen century, there have been many interpretations of what should be the main features and characteristics of a democratic regime. Indeed, for the last two centuries, the word democracy has been used in various occasions and to describe highly different forms of governments, some of which were not democratic at all. So how democracy could be defined? This question, which could seem simple at first sight, has been, and is still a source for debate in the world of political science. Indeed, when looking for more precise definitions of democracy than these by Abraham Lincoln, who asserted that democracy was « the government of the people, by the people and for the people », or by Winston Churchill, who described democracy as « the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried », it is relevant to highlight that there is a plurality of approaches among researchers in political science. This plurality is based on qualitative and quantitative tensions within the concept of democracy, also sources for many controversies between specialists of the democratisation processes.
