Route 1 democracy authorises power through consent → but contemporary success needs that power held within limits → Locke: government protects rights, bound by law, “where law ends, tyranny begins”

Route 2 restraint, not the mandate alone, is the real test → self-limitation = the harder half of democracy

authorise vs restrain (democracy authorises / constitutionalism restrains, both needed) → Zakaria: constitutionalism distinct, elections outrunning restraint → oppressive majority → Madison: oblige government to control itself → rule of law: government under law, minorities/dissenters protected → Diamond: “steel frame” against elected autocrats → separation of powers (Montesquieu): branches limit each other → pluralism (Dahl): power dispersed across press, opposition, civil society

self-limitation ≠ self-weakening → Bartels: backsliding is elite-driven loosening of self-limits → Holmes: restraining arbitrary power raises state capacity → Ambedkar: political democracy must rest on social & economic democracy → limit arbitrary power, not positive purpose

Route 1 state binds itself by law, divides authority, accepts plural checks → majorities rule without tyranny

Route 2 limited power and effective power are not opposites → the democracies that endure are those that restrain themselves