CANONS OR CANNONS?
ON MOBILIZING GLOBAL DEMOCRACY
Fred Dallmayr
University of Notre Dame
"Mobilizing democracy." A stirring motto or catch-phrase—and a well-chosen theme for
the annual meeting of one of the largest social science associations in America.
In choosing this
theme, the organizers obviously wanted to establish a broad agenda, both nationally and globally.
In fact, although couched as an ongoing process, the motto can readily be translated into a
directive or even imperative which postulates: "mobilize democracy," or else "spread democracy
everywhere" or simply "democratize the world"! The directive is stirring and captivating—but
also disorienting given the serious malaise afflicting contemporary democracy both at home and
abroad. How can we heed the agenda to mobilize democracy at a time when democracy almost
everywhere is under siege, being held hostage to huge military-industrial complexes and almost
routinely surrendered to "national security" interests? Moreover, quite apart from this distance
between reality and agenda (or between "is" and "ought"), there is a further troubling or
disorienting factor: the basic asymmetry inherent in general agendas or marching orders. For
clearly, like every other imperative, the injunction to democratize (or to mobilize democracy)
erects an asymmetry or hierarchy between those issuing the injunction and those subject to it,
that is, between those who "democratize" and those who are being "democratized" or, simply,
between those who command and those who obey. This asymmetry, however, stands in glaring
contrast with the democratic ethos which demands civic equality between all participants. Thus,
the mobilizing agenda employs means unsuitable for the chosen end.
The discrepancy is probably not troubling for national leaders or policy makers; being
solely conceived with power and efficiency criteria, their vision typically stops short of ends.
Page 1 of 25 
Convention