The development of the importance of de mocracy as a problem for theoretical analysis by the various branches of social science since 1800 has been fully as remarkable as the phenomenal growth of democracy in social, political and economic life. As was pointed out above; democracy until this period was not of sufficient importance in politi cal philosophy ever to have received a compre hensive and systematic analysis by a political theorist. Since the beginning of the 19th cen tury, however, works on various phases of de mocracy have appeared in' such a volume that only a few leading tendencies can be noticed in the scanty space which remains.
In the first place, it is interesting and signifi cant that the chief trends in the development of democracy in political theory closely parallel, and, to a large degree, were determined by the actual development of democracy in practice. Just as the first great advances toward democ racy in the 19th century were the work of the middle class advocates of so the first great expositions and defenses of democ racy came from individualists in political theory such as Jefferson, Mill, Cobden and Spencer, who defended a semi-Aristotelian variety of democ racy, in which the masses should participate but should be directed by the intellectually elite. Again, in the same way that democracy has in fact been made more inclusive to embrace the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie and has tended to adopt a broad program of social re form and state activity, so to-day the chief advanced exponents of modern democracy are to be found among the Socialists and radicals —men like the great socialistic leaders Bella Liebknecht and Jaures, such radicals as H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw and others of the English Fabian group, and sociological reformers who advocate a policy of extensive state activity and a radical program of social reconstruction in behalf of the proletariat. The present clay ad herents of the mid-Victorian individualism of Mill have become the conservatives, who, in political theory, occupy to-day the position once held by Metternich and the Duke of Wellington and their apologists, Bonald, De Maistre, and Von Haller.
An interesting development in the field of the analysis of democracy in social and political theory has been the clarification of the definition of democracy. The early definitions were gen formalistic and concerned chiefly with such problems as distinguishing between "pure° and "represeiatative° democracy and analyzing the political concept of democracy. Especially
important has been the "democratizing° of the very conception of democracy. The old Aris totelian notion of the "people° as the upper and middle class members of society, which per sisted down to the close of the 18th century, has been supplanted by the newer view which re gards the people as embracing all the members of society with no exception. Consequently, the phrase "government by the people" meant quite a different thing when used by Lincoln than it did when employed by Aristotle, Cusanus, Locke or Rousseau. Again, more recent stu dents of the subject have come to see that de mocracy is far more than merely a form of government. Professor Giddings, who may be taken as typical of the recent synthetic interpre tation of democracy, finds that democracy is a form of government, a form of the state and a type of social organization and social control. As a form of government a "pure democracy° is held to mean the enfranchisement of the ma jority of the population and the direct participa tion of the whole mass of the citizens in the operation of all the affairs of government. The much more common "representative democracy° is defined as one in which the citizens govern indirectly through periodically selected deputies or representatives. As a form of the state democracy implies the existence of popular sovereignty. Lastly, as a form of society de mocracy means both a democratic organization and control of non-political forms of activity and a determination of public policy by a ma jority of the citizens. (For a detailed analysis of the various phases of democracy see the following article on DEMOCRACY by Professor Ellwood). Finally, a number of students of democracy, among them Prof. James Harvey Robinson, have become dissatisfied with a for malistic and static analysis of democracy, have given it a pragmatic definition and have identi fied it with a dynamic program. Professor Robinson, for example, holds that democracy not only requires the popular control of public policy, but also implies a type of social organi zation which will develop to the fullest extent the latent potentialities of every member of the society, and imposes upon society the moral obligation to do everything in its power to hasten the realization of such a condition.