One of the developments from the Enlightenment was the belief that man could analyze the workings of society and in essence reconstruct society based on those findings. Confidence in their social and political understandings was a factor in leading men to construct democracies. Invariably such constructs are more complex than originally foreseen. The author points out that democracies invariably contain some inherent tensions.

For some the construction of a democracy is a "technocratic" project to design a set of institutions and rules/laws, adherence to which is necessary for an orderly society. The emphasis on such a framework was usually motivated by the view that rights and civil society exist prior to government and need to be protected by a system of checks and balances. The "good" society protects a multiplicity of interests from governmental encroachment.

Yet others are interested in reconstituting society based more on a "moral or religious vision." They desire the government to become much more a part of society to enforce a "totalistic" vision, contrary to a pluralistic view. The constraints of the institutions and representative bodies of the "technocrats" may be seen as a hindrance and unnecessary to achieving a good society.

In addition, some emphasize widespread citizen participation in all facets of society, eschewing being confined to simply voting. Such participatory democrats are more concerned with the inequalities of social power and see the state as the means to ensure equal participation in society.

The author points out that the drawing of the boundaries of what can legitimately be controlled politically has been a constant source of tension in modern democracies, much as the tradeoff between liberty and equality. It may be counterintuitive for those with political and social power, but the author insists that democracies must be able to accommodate the "symbols and themes of protest" to remain viable. Failure to do so can lead to a breakup or demise of a democracy.

This book is a difficult read. It is rather theoretical containing lengthy and complex sentences with little relief in practical digressions. For many the obscurity of the book may be greater than any paradoxes in democracy. For the brave or academically inclined, there may be enough in this small book to justify the effort of digging through it.

All is not well with contemporary democracy. Eisenstadt outlines two conflicting theories of democracy: "Constitutional," i.e. procedural, and "participatory." The first emphasizes correct democratic procedure but cannot command allegiance in the absence of a strong adherence to national and religious values. The second emphasizes community, in its extreme form at the expense of limitations such as ethics and the rule of law. Democracies exist in tension between these two perspectives.

Modern democracies exist, as well, in the shadow of what Eisenstadt calls the cultural and political programs of modernity. Social protest movements are a permanent feature of modern societies; they perennially arise, and existing "establishments" must find ways to accomodate them. Social and political fragmentation, or on the other hand Jacobinism (totalitarianism), are always possible outcomes. The social "perpetual motion" of modern societies, including democracies, hasn't ended just because Communism fell. They remain vulnerable to the potentially extreme outcomes of social conflict, and Eisenstadt ends his book on a somber note, pointing out the eroding stability of democratic societies most of us would like to think are strong and secure.

Eisenstadt thinks that strong national and religious identity are important in reinforcing the cohesion of society and preventing the emergence of extreme political outcomes. This is of course the opposite of the Rawlsian argument. Institutional development also matters. Being a sociologist, he concentrates on showing how social forces and institutional structures help determine political outcomes. This book makes uncomfortable reading for someone, like this reviewer, whose country lacks most of the social and political background Eisenstadt identifies as helpful in maintaining the cohesion, and hence the potential for openness, of society.

This tension hasn't gone away simply because Communism collapsed. Eisenstadt insists that the problems of, on the one hand, flagging commitment to public values, and on the other, the threat of antidemocratic mov