So even if contestation and inclusion are two pivotal aspects, it is still not enough to

constitute as a democracy.
Basically a polyarchy is an extension of inclusion and contestation
So Dahl used the word “polyarchy” to define a regime that has high level of contestation and
inclusion.
Polyarchy is a necessary foundation and basis of modern democracy.
Polyarchy has 5 interpretations
- As a regime
- As a product of democratizing nation states
- A necessity to the democratic process
- A system of control by competition
- A system of rights
First it needs 7 political institutions which are exemplified in
1. Elected officials
2. Free and fair elections
3. Inclusive suffrage
4. Inclusive right to run for office
5. Freedom of expression
6. Alternative sources of information or the freedom of media
7. Associational autonomy or freedom of association
Second
Present siya sa nation-state due to its size as compared to a city-state
Modern form of government siya kasi unlike earlier models it doesn’t rely on face to face
interactions
Third
Necessary siya sa democratic process for the modern era
As said earlier, it is necessary but insufficient to the democratic process in a marco level such
as the nation state or a country
In line with the five criterions na binigay nila khalid kanina, though it does not necessarily assure
na makukuha yung limang yun, but through a polyarchy it will contribute to achieving them.
Dahl placed special attention to the context of inclusive citizenship.
Which begs the question of “which are the people?” Dahl reiterates the reminder that it is
dangerous for a people to define itself. Lalo na kapag tao mamimili kung sino yung kabilang sa
kanila sa hindi kasi it sets the precedent for discrimination.
So that is the problem faced of “full inclusion”
Fourth
Basically may system of control opposition
Of course this is necessitated by rights, meaning there is space for dissent and as such freedom
of expression to remain intolerant of the government and the officials running it
In short, opposition.
Citizens can influence their government and to an extent,,, place their concerns in the policy
agenda or determine the outcome.
So opposition whether through dissent or opposition parties are good for polyarchies.
Kaya mapipigilan niya na mag thrive ang “autonomous associations” provided na walang “high
level of coercion”

Fifth
System of rights
Rights are needed to protect and guarantee the institutions of polyarchy
So rights are essential to the establishment of good governance for government to be fair just
and democratic.
For dahl, fundamental rights are procedural rights of human beings to govern themselves
And the fact that self-governance is the equal consideration of all
Kaya may freedom of expressions, not just for dissent but or to provide people with
information rather they provide choices about their destiny
In sum, in Dahl’s written work “Toward Democracy” meron siyang 3 defenses for polyarchy as a
necessity and foundation of democracy
1) Mali daw ang alternatives sa polyarchy since alternatives to democracy are
unacceptable
Such as the concept of protective democracy and guardianship
[[ This is in line with protective democracy – government as a mechanism for protecting (pre-
political) private rights against the claim of majoritarian rule ]]
((pre political rights then are not a threat against the state but a threat AGAINS THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS))
[[ protective devices almost always guardianship or governance by the experts]]

2) Polyarchy as a base of democracy is because it holds morals as paramount since nga

based siya on rights
3) Finally, it protects and uniquely realizes genuine human goods. As such, democracy is
inseparable to reason
 a. Democracy generates goods through
i. Autonomy
ii. Responsibility implied by autonomy
iii. Reasonableness
So for dahl
Genuine democratic decisions must and can only take place through a polyarchy.

To conclude
The 5 elements that was mentioned earlier presupposed the principle of equal
consideration of interests and presumption of personal autonomy that would yield A STRONG
PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY (SPE)
A strong principle of equality is mutually exclusive with the acceptance to “a democratic process
as a requirement for making binding decisions”
Reflects the people’s considered judgement through deliberation reasoning, the different points
of view and calling for information too reconcile differences.

It is exemplified within 7 political institutions

1. Control over governmental decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in
elected officials.

2. Elected officials are chosen and peacefully removed in relatively frequent, fair,
and free elections in which coercion is quite limited.

3. Practically all adults have the right to vote in these elections.

4. Most adults also have the right to run for the public offices for which candidates
run in these elections.
5. Citizens have an effectively enforced right to freedom of expression, particularly
political expression, including criticism of the officials, the conduct of the government,
the prevailing political, economic, and social system, and the dominant ideology.
6. They also have access to alternative sources of information that are not
monopolized by the government or any other single group.
7. Finally they have an effectively enforced right to form and join autonomous
associations, including political associations, such as political parties and interest
groups, that attempt to influence the government by competing in elections and by
other peaceful means (p. 233).