Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998
I know that this conference is devoted to very important issues, and it is a great honor to address such a diverse and influential and distinguished audience. However, I have been admonished that, while we are dealing with eternal issues, the speeches should not be eternal, so I will try to confine my remarks to about 20 minutes. I promise you I will try to fit in what I have to say within that framework.
The right to freedom of religion is perhaps the oldest human right recognized internationally. In fact, this year is the 350th anniversary of a transnational or international document, the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which accorded international protections to religious groupings. In the eighteenth century, the right of religious liberty added dynamism to the Commonwealth of Virginia ‘s Bill of Rights of 1776, the Austrian Act of Religious Tolerance of 1781, the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, as well as a Prussian document called the Allgemeines Preussisches Landrecht of 1794.
It seems to me that the elaboration of international and national instruments protecting religious liberty has a long and storied history, but in truth, in the modern era, it is relatively weak. It is relatively weak in part, because international institutions shaped their human rights documents based on grand compromises with governments that were governed by ideologies preaching atheism. Therefore, even the wonderful Article 18, about which Bruce Casino spoke, is not simply a document about freedom of religion. It is a document that is encoded with other rights, including the right to freedom of conscience, thought, and the like. It seems to me that in an international community where religion plays such a central role in civilization, it ought to be accorded its own separate and proper place.
I would prefer to focus my remarks tonight in a way which I think is different from what you will be hearing in the rest of the several day’s convocations, by addressing an equally crucial issue: the nexus between religious belief, religious systems, and the expansion of human liberty and human rights that is occurring at the dawn of the new millennium. Certainly, that nexus is attracting a lot of attention. Over the last year no foreign policy issue related to human rights has achieved greater grass roots attention in the United States than this issue of religious liberty. It is at the root of the Wolfe-Specter bill that passed the US House of Representatives with nearly universal support among Republicans and vastly overwhelming supporting among Democrats, despite vigorous opposition from the Clinton Administration. There is also a growing awareness in the United States of the issue of religious persecution, of how wide spread it is, and how great a problem it is in countries like China, Tibet, Vietnam, and the Sudan.
This growing awareness suggests that in the United States and, I would suspect, throughout the democratic world, the suppression of religious freedom is increasingly viewed as an odious and intolerable violation of basic human rights. Because it has this kind of great resonance, there is great power vested in the people gathered in this room. I believe that the kinds of efforts that have been so successful in the United States can be replicated, because there is a general understanding among most people of good will—whether they are believers or not—of the importance of religious values and their place in a good society.
The nexus of religion and human freedom is also being developed among social and political scientists in the theory of an emerging potential clash of civilizations. A provocative thesis has been advanced by one of the members of the board of Freedom House, Professor Samuel Huntington. This relationship is at the center, as well, of some very serious thinking about economic growth, social progress and social development, and the nexus of religious belief in the work of very talented social scientists such as Francis Fukuyama, in the United States.
I, and many of the scholars in this audience, can, of course, trace the roots and basis for the beliefs in fundamental human rights to religious traditions. However, I would like to focus, instead, on how and where progress is occurring, and in which of the great civilizational expanses there has been, and is, the potential for democratic progress, and progress along the broad range of human rights.
Freedom House, the organization which I head, does a report card on the state of freedom each year. We look at those societies that have the political framework of democracy, that is, free and fair elections. We also examine and evaluate societies as to whether they are free, which means that there is a fairly broad range of rights that are enjoyed by citizens. Frequently, there are abridgments of the rights of minorities and other problems, but there are the mechanisms to solve these problems in a climate of the rule of law. We rate other countries as partly free, in which there are a number of rights, but also other kinds of problems: internal conflicts; sectarian conflicts that erupt into systemic patterns of violence; or societies in which there is an inordinate influence of the military. In addition, we rate societies that are not free, in which the broad range of rights is violated and breached.
It is interesting to look at the way the world is divided in terms of the level of freedom—free societies, partly free societies and unfree societies—within the context of traditional religious beliefs and religious belief systems. The correlation between aspects of religion, civilization, and democratic development, therefore, are the issues that I would like to bring to your attention.
Religions reflect fundamental beliefs and values, but I would argue—and the data show—that religions can rapidly adjust their attitudes toward politics and public policy. One trend is this correlation between political freedom and religious belief. Of the 191 countries that we rate, there are 81 countries that we judge to be free, that is, having a broad range of rights. Seventy-four of these are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only seven free countries are not majority Christian or traditionally Christian. Countries that are outside of that expanse are Mauritius, which has a substantial Christian and Hindu community. There are four countries without a Judeo-Christian tradition, where there is a very strong democratic climate of freedom. These include Taiwan, where of course, nearly half the population is Buddhist; Mongolia, which is traditionally Buddhist; Japan, which observes both Buddhist and Shinto traditions; and Mali, which is the only free predominately Muslim country in the world today.
The correlation between Christianity and freedom at the end of the twentieth century is very strong, according to our data. As I say, 74 of the 81 countries are predominately Christian. Just 11 of the 67 countries, that have the poorest record in terms of political rights and civil liberties, are Christian. By this indicator, predominately Christian countries, at this stage in human development, are about six times more likely to be free and democratic, as they are to be nondemocratic and suffer from serious abridgments in human rights. In the Islamic world, as I said, only one country, Mali, is free. Fourteen are placed at a kind of a middle level, and are rated as partly free, while 28 are not free. Of these 43 Muslim countries, six are electoral democracies: Albania, Bangladesh, Kurdistan, Mali, Pakistan and Turkey. These are countries with a reasonably competitive electoral process, including contending parties, but which have many restrictions, abridgments, and deep problems. Therefore, you could not say that they are fully free societies.
Some of this data may be disturbing to some people. I do not mean it to be offensive to anyone, because some of this data shows how mutable circumstances are, and how rapidly things can change. Just two decades ago, if I had been giving this same speech, I would have drawn an entirely different correlation about the state of affairs in predominately Catholic countries. Today, of the 49 majority Catholic countries, 47 are free and reasonably vibrant democracies. Two decades ago, before the papacy of John Paul II, 21 or 22 of the 44 majority Catholic countries at that time were democracies and free societies.
...What has proven true is that, as trends began to develop in Latin America, they influenced Catholic communities in Central Europe, who shared a common language of beliefs, a common vision of the world, and a common set of religious values. They influenced Catholics mobilizing for change, and inspired them in places like South Korea. There is a kind of harmony and harmonization of trends within these kinds of traditions, which is very important for all of us to understand.
Therefore, when I read the bleak statistics about the state of affairs in Islam, I think it has to be kept within the context that these sets of affairs are mutable, and fundamental change is possible. There are signs in recent years and days, of stirrings of democratic ferment, or at least the possibilities of pressure toward democratic change, and the opening up of democratic transitions in parts of the Islamic world.
Certainly, large segments of the Islamic world are experiencing a rising degree of civic activism. In Indonesia we see that secular Islamic leaders, like Ahmien Rais and Abdurrahman Wahid, who are neither religious leaders nor clerics, have played a crucial role in building an intelligent opposition to the Suharto tyranny, and pressing for liberalization and democratic political reform. In terrorist ravaged Algeria—despite the fact that elections are tainted, not fully free and fair, and dominated in great measure by the military—people have used the political process to register their objections to this butchery, and to use the process of democracy to resolve conflicts among themselves. In the areas governed by the Palestinian self-rule authority, a younger generation, deeply committed to democratic values, is emerging to take the place of veterans of the guerrilla movement that was the PLO. In similar ways, as a different generation has supplanted some of the people who were engaged in the activities of the military wing of the African National Congress, they are rising in prominence and paving a way to a more democratic transition within South Africa.
In Iran, a country in which Shi’ism has have often been equated with radical revolutionary politics, there are growing signs that there could be a return to its original fundamentalist tradition, which also believes in the proper division between the authority of the state and the mosque, the historic Shi’a tradition for over a millennium. It is really over the last 20 or 30 years, partly influenced by nationalist sentiments, that a departure into revolutionary politics has occurred. Newly elected President Mohammad Khatami, while an imperfect leader whose words cannot be taken at face value, is able to assert within the Iranian context, that democracy is one of the great contributions to Western civilization, and that it ought to be a part of Iranian society. This is a trend that deserves watching, and it suggests that, within this broad expanse of the Islamic world, there is some potential for change.
Even in Lebanon, that united country, there is growing pressure and great interest in participating in municipal elections. While it would be naive to say that all these are harbingers of a great shift within this civilization, they certainly bear watching. This is particularly so if we keep in mind that these major landmark shifts toward greater freedom and greater democracy tend to occur within the context of civilizations that speak in a way that transnationally links them to common sets of values.
Since this conference is focused on Europe, and takes place at the intersection where East and West were split, it is worth devoting some attention to the divide that continues to bedevil this new, more unified Europe after the Wall’s fall. The collapse of communism has already had a profound effect on the human liberty of many people. Religious life, it seems to me, is a more vibrant part of many of these societies, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. Christian democratic movements, for example, have been on the rise in Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. They have found a way to speak to the public in ways that maintain cohesiveness among the anticommunist forces. They have been able—with the exception of Slovakia, and possibly, they will succeed in Slovakia as well—to displace the ex-communist or the post-communist political forces within those countries. It is a very important trend, and one in which, in many of these movements, political leaders are motivated by deeply held religious beliefs. Similar trends can be found, to a degree, in the Baltic States, but I think a more complicated situation exists in the former Soviet Union.
While religious values are in ferment, and there is a spiritual hunger among many people in these societies, there is not the same kind of dynamism of religious revival in countries like Russia and Ukraine. I think that, in part, their political difficulties, and their difficulties in making an economic transition, are linked to a kind of spiritual vacuum that still exists. This is why it is particularly disheartening that, rather than injecting a more dynamic and competitive environment—not a Babel, but a dialogue of different religious beliefs and choices—the Russian Duma and the Russian authorities have chosen to impose a very restrictive religious law. The law has not yet been applied in a broadly repressive way, but it has great potential for this. That kind of shortsightedness may be found among many American social scientists, who fail to grasp the harmonic link between democratic values and a sense of the spirit, and even the link between a vibrant market place and a spiritual awakening among people.
Much of the economic progress in Latin America and East Asia in recent years, particularly in Korea, has been accomplished with the dynamic rise of new religious denominations. The belief in a strong market economy has been linked to the growth of evangelical Christianity, which has been in a competitive status with the existing established religions. This has created societies that are more dynamic and, I would argue, more open because of that process.
Having described these trends, let me say that in Washington, and I expect in parts of the West and Western Europe, few policy makers look at the world through the prism of religious influences and religious values. Many, particularly in the media and the policy elite, feel uncomfortable with the voice of religious values in the public square. Somehow they regard it as divisive in America, particularly in our multidenominational and multiethnic setting, but increasingly so in the multiethnic and multireligious settings of Europe. Our media extols the virtues of secularism and would prefer, as I have said, to see religion removed from a place in the public square. The injection of religion and religiously inspired moral values into the political discourse continues to be met with cries of the threats of fundamentalism and renewed calls for the strict separation of church and state. I think that policy makers need a more sophisticated understanding of the role of religion.
In some ways, ironically, fundamentalist religions are the least likely to preach direct engagement in religious life. But, it seems to me, the religious community also has to understand this harmonic relationship between religious values and the democratic global revolution that has been going on for the last two or three decades and which has not yet, I believe, run out of steam. Clearly, many religious groups are only now re-emerging from the yoke of aggressively atheistic states that have held them down in many places. There is an opportunity for the flowering of religious beliefs in large parts of the world that had been cut off both from proselytizing and from internal religious life. Yet, to pursue the expansion of religious life and values requires a democratic context of respect for human rights. It is a difficult thing for religious leaders to handle, but the proper balance of understanding is that their own interests, and their opportunity to preach in an open way, is directly linked to the progress that their societies make toward democratic transition.
In conclusion, I would say that there should also be a concomitant or simultaneous understanding that democracies require religion. They desperately need the injection of moral judgment as a crucial component of the democratic crucible. Without it, you emerge in an antiseptic and immoral world in which democracy becomes the equivalent of license. Effective democracies and truly free societies are strongest when they have citizens who have a strong internal moral compass. This is the best guarantee of keeping the state out of what should be the proper preserve of culture, belief, religion and individual choice.
If the project of expanding democracy and human rights to the far reaches of our increasingly interrelated world is to be successful, it will happen through the cooperation of the very people who are gathered in this room. The great wave of the expansion of democratic liberty and freedom that has occurred since the 1970s is directly related to the positive influences of religious leaders and religious beliefs. Religion has played and will continue to play a central role in the process that is the heart and soul of the human thirst for freedom and dignity.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
DEMOCRACY
Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2] In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of "illiberal democracy."[3]
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[5][6][7]
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally[14]. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15][16]
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in ancient Greece[17][18]. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as the American Indians ( Weatherford 1990) Ancient Rome[17], Europe[17], and North and South America.[19] Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[20] Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Part of the Politics series
Forms of government
List of forms of government
Anarchism
Aristocracy
Authoritarianism
Autocracy
Communist state
Corporatocracy
Demarchy
Democracy
DirectRepresentative
Despotism
Dictatorship
Military
Feudalism
Kritocracy
Logocracy
Meritocracy
Minarchism
Monarchy
AbsoluteConstitutional
Night watchman state
Noocracy
Ochlocracy
Oligarchy
Plutocracy
Republic
CapitalistConstitutionalParliamentary
Socialism
Socialist state
Sociocracy
Technocracy
Theocracy
Theodemocracy
Timocracy
Totalitarianism
Tribe
Chiefdom
Politics portal
v • d • e
Contents[hide]
1 Forms of democracy
1.1 Representative
1.1.1 Parliamentary democracy
1.1.2 Liberal democracy
1.2 Constitutional democracy
1.3 Direct Democracy
1.4 Socialist Democracy
1.5 Anarchist Democracy
1.6 Iroquois Democracy
1.7 Sortition
1.8 Consensus democracy
1.9 Interactive Democracy
2 History
2.1 Ancient origins
2.2 Middle Ages
2.3 18th and 19th centuries
2.4 20th century
3 Theory
3.1 Aristotle
3.2 Conceptions
3.3 Democracy and republic
3.4 Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
4 Supranational democracy
5 Non-government democracy
6 Criticisms
6.1 Mob rule
6.2 Moral decay
6.3 Political instability
6.4 Short termism
6.5 Slow response
6.6 Association with Americanisation, consumerism and elitism
6.7 Conflicts between groups
6.8 Social, religious and political segregation
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
//
[edit] Forms of democracy
Main article: Democracy (varieties)
See also: List of types of democracy
[edit] Representative
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
[edit] Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
[edit] Liberal democracy
A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
[edit] Constitutional democracy
See: Constitutional democracy
[edit] Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting).[29] Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000) (ISBN 0-8047-3821-1). In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.
[edit] Socialist Democracy
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)
[edit] Anarchist Democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[30] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[31] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[32] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[33]
[edit] Iroquois Democracy
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[34] Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin[34] and Thomas Jefferson.[35] Though some disagree[36], some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy.[35]
[edit] Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].
[edit] Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
[edit] Interactive Democracy
Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.
[edit] History
Main article: History of democracy
Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map displays the official self identification made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of March 2008. It shows the de jure status of democracy in the world Governments self identified as democratic Governments not self identified as democratic.
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
This is one attempted measurement of democracy called the Polity IV data series. This map shows the data presented in the polity IV data series report as of 2003. The lightest countries get a perfect score of 10, while the darkest countries (Saudi Arabia and Qatar), considered the least democratic, score -10.
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.
Democracy Index as published in January, 2007. The palest blue countries get a score above 9.5 out of 10 (with Sweden being the most democratic country at 9.88), while the black countries score below 2 (with North Korea being the least democratic at 1.03).
Political ratings of countries according to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey, 2008:
Free, electoral democracies Partially free, electoral democracies
Partially free, not electoral democracies Not free, not electoral democracies
[edit] Ancient origins
The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy.[37] Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[38] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. All the male Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or poor. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]
The island of Arwad, settled in the early 2nd millennium BC by the Phoenicians, has been cited[39] as one of the first known examples of a democracy in the world. In Arwad, the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign. In Greek, Arwad was known as Arado or Arados. Vaishali in what is now Bihar, India is also one of the first governments in the world to have elements of what we would today consider democracy, similar to those found in ancient Greece (although it was not a monarchy, ancient Vaishali is perhaps better described as an oligarchy). A similar proto-democracy or ogligarchy existed temporarily among the Medes in the 6th century BC, but which came to an end after the Achaemenid Emperor Darius the Great declared that the best monarchy was better than the best ogligarchy or best democracy.[40]
Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly into certain aspects of democracy, such as Laws, it never became a democracy. The Romans had elections for choosing representatives, but again women, slaves, and the large foreign population were excluded. Also the votes of the wealthy were given more weight and almost all high officials, such as being member of Senate, come from a few wealthy and noble families.[41]
A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the sixth century BCE and persisted in some areas until the fourth century CE. The evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian at the time of Alexander the Great's excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.[42] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy at the third century BC had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.[43][44].
[edit] Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a minority of the population, such as the election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate, the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tyrol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population (less than 3% in 1780.[45]), and the system had problematic features such as rotten boroughs. The power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of the Parliament.[45] The franchise was slowly increased and the Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[46]
Democracy was also seen to a certain extent in bands and tribes such as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, in the Iroquois Confederacy only the males of certain clans could be leaders and some clans were excluded. Only the oldest females from the same clans could choose and remove the leaders. This excluded most of the population. An interesting detail is that there should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.[47][48] Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence, that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged individualism.[49]
[edit] 18th and 19th centuries
Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality.[50] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. However, in the colonial period before 1776, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[51] However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60-80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote.
In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males.[52]
Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late nineteenth century. Various nations and territories have claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.
[edit] 20th century
20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[53]
World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[54]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India, however emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[55] In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)
A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid- to late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.
Currently, there are 123 countries that are democratic, and the trend is increasing[56] (up from 40 in 1972)[citation needed]. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History" controversial theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to Post-democracy, and other who points out the high number of illiberal democracies.
[edit] Theory
[edit] Aristotle
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny/monarchy or today autocracy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[57][58]
For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.
“
But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[5]
”
[edit] Conceptions
Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.
Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:
Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[59] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.
Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.
Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter – with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments.Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[60]
Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[61] Some see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds.
Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds.
Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes.
[edit] Democracy and republic
Main article: Republicanism
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[62] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[63]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[64] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it[65]
[edit] Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
Initially after the American and French revolutions the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).
[edit] Supranational democracy
Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected. Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many other international organizations.
European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.
[edit] Non-government democracy
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.
Many non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.
Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.
Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.
[edit] Criticisms
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2008)
[edit] Mob rule
Plato's the Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."[66] Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only aristocracy is a just form of government, believing that a majority is too irrational to make decisions for the entire populace, thus degrading to mob rule.
The Founding Fathers of the United States intended to address this criticism by combining democracy with republicanism. A constitution would limit the powers of what a simple majority can accomplish.[67] However, anarchists and other critics of large governments find this to be a poor solution, as there is nothing inherent in a constitution that will prevent democratic abuses.
[edit] Moral decay
Traditional Asian cultures, in particular that of Confucian and Islamic thought believe that democracy results in the people's distrust and disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect pervades to all parts of society whenever and wherever there is seniority and juniority, for example between a parent and a child, a teacher and a student. This in turn is suggested to be the cause of frequent divorces, teenage crimes, vandalism, hooliganism and low education attainment in Western societies, in particular the United States. It is argued (also by some psychologists) that moral decay occurs when there is no longer a respectable leader (or God as in the case of Islam) who sets high moral standards and when a politically free environment creates excessive individuality.
Further, Islamists argue that only an Islamic republic is truly compatible with the will of God.[68]
[edit] Political instability
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.
[edit] Short termism
[edit] Slow response
[edit] Association with Americanisation, consumerism and elitism
[edit] Conflicts between groups
Conflicts between people with different opinions and interests can arise. Whenever this occurs, democracy tends to support a referendum or vote in which the majority's wish is carried out. Critics therefore, argue the accountability of making decisions based on this.
[edit] Social, religious and political segregation
[edit] See also
List of types of democracy
Parliamentary democracy
Community of Democracies
Democracy Index
Democratic Peace Theory
Democratization
Direct democracy
E-democracy
Election
Foucault/Habermas debate
Freedom deficit
Freedom House, Freedom in the World report
Liberal democracy
Majority rule
Media democracy
Netocracy
Poll
Polyarchy
Sociocracy
Sortition
Democracy subversion
Voting
[edit] Notes
The United Nations has declared 15 September as the International Day of Democracy.[69]
[edit] References
^ Demokratia, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus
^ a b Democracy is people who rule the government directly.BBC History of democracy
^ The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
^ Liberty and justice for some at Economist.com
^ a b Aristotle, Politics.1317b
^ R. Alan Dahl, I. Shapiro, J. A. Cheibub, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press 2003, ISBN 0262541475, Google Books link
^ M. Hénaff, T. B. Strong, Public Space and Democracy, University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 0816633878
^ G. F. Gaus, C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory, SAGE, 2004, p. 143-145, ISBN 0761967877, Google Books link
^ The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 26, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ A. Barak, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 40, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ T. R. Williamson, Problems in American Democracy, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 36, ISBN 1419143166, Google Books link
^ U. K. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law." Journal of Law and Society, 18:3 (1991). pp. 353-364
^ Substantively fairness means equality among all citizens in all respects i.e. equality in chances, in starting point etc.
^ Procedural fairness means that the rules of the elections are clear and set in advance
^ A. Barak,The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 27, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ H. Kelsen, Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Part 2: Foundations of Democracy (Oct., 1955), pp. 1-101
^ a b c John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC - 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994, ISBN 0198279345
^ Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, Origin of Democracy in Ancient Greece, University of California Press, 2007, ISBN 0520245628, Google Books link
^ Weatherford, J. McIver (1988). Indian givers: how the Indians of the America transformed the world. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 117 - 150. ISBN 0-449-90496-2.
^ "The Global Trend" chart on Freedom in the World 2007: Freedom Stagnation Amid Pushback Against Democracy published by Freedom House
^ Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
^ Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948.
^ Mahan, Alfred Thayer, "The United States Looking Outward," in The Interest of America in Sea Power. New York: Harper & Bros., 1897.
^ Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents' War. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1967.
^ Taussig, Capt. J. K., "Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion," in Quarterdeck and Fo'c'sle. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963
^ Hegemony Or Survival, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 0-8050-7400-7
^ Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 0374523495
^ Class Warfare, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 1-5675-1092-2
^ Article on direct democracy by Imraan Buccus
^ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. General Idea of the Revolution See also commentary by Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution
^ Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
^ Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm
^ Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century
^ a b Iroquois Contributions to Modern Democracy and Communism. Bagley, Carol L.; Ruckman, Jo Ann. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, v7 n2 p53-72 1983
^ a b Native American Societies and the Evolution of Democracy in America, 1600-1800 Bruce E. Johansen Ethnohistory, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 279-290
^ Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples By Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, Will Sanders. Page 237
^ Political Analysis in Plato's Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Aristotle Book 6
^ Bernal, p. 359
^ Snell, Daniel C. (2001), Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, Brill Publishers, p. 18, ISBN 9004120106
^ ANCIENT ROME FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES DOWN TO 476 A.D
^ Dio. 2.39
^ Larsen, J. A. O., Demokratia, Classical Philology, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), p. 45-46
^ de Sainte Croix G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, Ithaca, 1981
^ a b The National Archives Exhibitions & Learning online Citizenship Struggle for democracy
^ The National Archives Exhibitions & Learning online Citizenship Rise of Parliament
^ Activity Four
^ Omdirigeringsmeddelande
^ "Melanesia Historical and Geographical: the Solomon Islands and the New Hebrides", Southern Cross n°1, London: 1950
^ Jacqueline Newmyer, "Present from the start: John Adams and America", Oxonian Review of Books, 2005, vol 4 issue 2
^ Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (1974) 117-158. ISBN 0826303102
^ The French Revolution II
^ AGE OF DICTATORS: TOTALITARIANISM IN THE INTER-WAR PERIOD
^ Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute
^ BBC NEWS World South Asia Country profiles Country profile: India
^ freedomhouse.org: Tables and Charts
^ Aristotle, The Politics
^ [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.
^ Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0-06-041750-1.
^ Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300049382
^ democracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ republic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775
^ Republican Government: Introduction
^ Plato, the Republic of Plato (London: J.M Dent & Sons LTD.; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc.), 558-C.
^ James Madison, Federalist No. 10
^ Abdul Qadir Bin Abdul Aziz, The Criticism of Democracy and the Illustration of its Reality
^ GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECLARES 15 SEPTEMBER INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DEMOCRACY; ALSO ELECTS 18 MEMBERS TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[5][6][7]
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally[14]. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15][16]
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in ancient Greece[17][18]. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as the American Indians ( Weatherford 1990) Ancient Rome[17], Europe[17], and North and South America.[19] Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[20] Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Part of the Politics series
Forms of government
List of forms of government
Anarchism
Aristocracy
Authoritarianism
Autocracy
Communist state
Corporatocracy
Demarchy
Democracy
DirectRepresentative
Despotism
Dictatorship
Military
Feudalism
Kritocracy
Logocracy
Meritocracy
Minarchism
Monarchy
AbsoluteConstitutional
Night watchman state
Noocracy
Ochlocracy
Oligarchy
Plutocracy
Republic
CapitalistConstitutionalParliamentary
Socialism
Socialist state
Sociocracy
Technocracy
Theocracy
Theodemocracy
Timocracy
Totalitarianism
Tribe
Chiefdom
Politics portal
v • d • e
Contents[hide]
1 Forms of democracy
1.1 Representative
1.1.1 Parliamentary democracy
1.1.2 Liberal democracy
1.2 Constitutional democracy
1.3 Direct Democracy
1.4 Socialist Democracy
1.5 Anarchist Democracy
1.6 Iroquois Democracy
1.7 Sortition
1.8 Consensus democracy
1.9 Interactive Democracy
2 History
2.1 Ancient origins
2.2 Middle Ages
2.3 18th and 19th centuries
2.4 20th century
3 Theory
3.1 Aristotle
3.2 Conceptions
3.3 Democracy and republic
3.4 Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
4 Supranational democracy
5 Non-government democracy
6 Criticisms
6.1 Mob rule
6.2 Moral decay
6.3 Political instability
6.4 Short termism
6.5 Slow response
6.6 Association with Americanisation, consumerism and elitism
6.7 Conflicts between groups
6.8 Social, religious and political segregation
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
//
[edit] Forms of democracy
Main article: Democracy (varieties)
See also: List of types of democracy
[edit] Representative
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
[edit] Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
[edit] Liberal democracy
A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
[edit] Constitutional democracy
See: Constitutional democracy
[edit] Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting).[29] Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000) (ISBN 0-8047-3821-1). In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.
[edit] Socialist Democracy
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)
[edit] Anarchist Democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[30] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[31] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[32] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[33]
[edit] Iroquois Democracy
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[34] Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin[34] and Thomas Jefferson.[35] Though some disagree[36], some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy.[35]
[edit] Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].
[edit] Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
[edit] Interactive Democracy
Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.
[edit] History
Main article: History of democracy
Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map displays the official self identification made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of March 2008. It shows the de jure status of democracy in the world Governments self identified as democratic Governments not self identified as democratic.
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
This is one attempted measurement of democracy called the Polity IV data series. This map shows the data presented in the polity IV data series report as of 2003. The lightest countries get a perfect score of 10, while the darkest countries (Saudi Arabia and Qatar), considered the least democratic, score -10.
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.
Democracy Index as published in January, 2007. The palest blue countries get a score above 9.5 out of 10 (with Sweden being the most democratic country at 9.88), while the black countries score below 2 (with North Korea being the least democratic at 1.03).
Political ratings of countries according to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey, 2008:
Free, electoral democracies Partially free, electoral democracies
Partially free, not electoral democracies Not free, not electoral democracies
[edit] Ancient origins
The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy.[37] Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[38] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. All the male Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or poor. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]
The island of Arwad, settled in the early 2nd millennium BC by the Phoenicians, has been cited[39] as one of the first known examples of a democracy in the world. In Arwad, the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign. In Greek, Arwad was known as Arado or Arados. Vaishali in what is now Bihar, India is also one of the first governments in the world to have elements of what we would today consider democracy, similar to those found in ancient Greece (although it was not a monarchy, ancient Vaishali is perhaps better described as an oligarchy). A similar proto-democracy or ogligarchy existed temporarily among the Medes in the 6th century BC, but which came to an end after the Achaemenid Emperor Darius the Great declared that the best monarchy was better than the best ogligarchy or best democracy.[40]
Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly into certain aspects of democracy, such as Laws, it never became a democracy. The Romans had elections for choosing representatives, but again women, slaves, and the large foreign population were excluded. Also the votes of the wealthy were given more weight and almost all high officials, such as being member of Senate, come from a few wealthy and noble families.[41]
A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the sixth century BCE and persisted in some areas until the fourth century CE. The evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian at the time of Alexander the Great's excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.[42] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy at the third century BC had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.[43][44].
[edit] Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a minority of the population, such as the election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate, the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tyrol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population (less than 3% in 1780.[45]), and the system had problematic features such as rotten boroughs. The power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of the Parliament.[45] The franchise was slowly increased and the Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[46]
Democracy was also seen to a certain extent in bands and tribes such as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, in the Iroquois Confederacy only the males of certain clans could be leaders and some clans were excluded. Only the oldest females from the same clans could choose and remove the leaders. This excluded most of the population. An interesting detail is that there should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.[47][48] Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence, that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged individualism.[49]
[edit] 18th and 19th centuries
Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality.[50] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. However, in the colonial period before 1776, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[51] However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60-80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote.
In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males.[52]
Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late nineteenth century. Various nations and territories have claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.
[edit] 20th century
20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[53]
World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[54]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India, however emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[55] In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)
A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid- to late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.
Currently, there are 123 countries that are democratic, and the trend is increasing[56] (up from 40 in 1972)[citation needed]. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History" controversial theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to Post-democracy, and other who points out the high number of illiberal democracies.
[edit] Theory
[edit] Aristotle
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny/monarchy or today autocracy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[57][58]
For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.
“
But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[5]
”
[edit] Conceptions
Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.
Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:
Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[59] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.
Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.
Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter – with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments.Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[60]
Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[61] Some see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds.
Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds.
Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes.
[edit] Democracy and republic
Main article: Republicanism
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[62] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[63]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[64] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it[65]
[edit] Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
Initially after the American and French revolutions the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).
[edit] Supranational democracy
Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected. Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many other international organizations.
European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.
[edit] Non-government democracy
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.
Many non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.
Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.
Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.
[edit] Criticisms
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2008)
[edit] Mob rule
Plato's the Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."[66] Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only aristocracy is a just form of government, believing that a majority is too irrational to make decisions for the entire populace, thus degrading to mob rule.
The Founding Fathers of the United States intended to address this criticism by combining democracy with republicanism. A constitution would limit the powers of what a simple majority can accomplish.[67] However, anarchists and other critics of large governments find this to be a poor solution, as there is nothing inherent in a constitution that will prevent democratic abuses.
[edit] Moral decay
Traditional Asian cultures, in particular that of Confucian and Islamic thought believe that democracy results in the people's distrust and disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect pervades to all parts of society whenever and wherever there is seniority and juniority, for example between a parent and a child, a teacher and a student. This in turn is suggested to be the cause of frequent divorces, teenage crimes, vandalism, hooliganism and low education attainment in Western societies, in particular the United States. It is argued (also by some psychologists) that moral decay occurs when there is no longer a respectable leader (or God as in the case of Islam) who sets high moral standards and when a politically free environment creates excessive individuality.
Further, Islamists argue that only an Islamic republic is truly compatible with the will of God.[68]
[edit] Political instability
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.
[edit] Short termism
[edit] Slow response
[edit] Association with Americanisation, consumerism and elitism
[edit] Conflicts between groups
Conflicts between people with different opinions and interests can arise. Whenever this occurs, democracy tends to support a referendum or vote in which the majority's wish is carried out. Critics therefore, argue the accountability of making decisions based on this.
[edit] Social, religious and political segregation
[edit] See also
List of types of democracy
Parliamentary democracy
Community of Democracies
Democracy Index
Democratic Peace Theory
Democratization
Direct democracy
E-democracy
Election
Foucault/Habermas debate
Freedom deficit
Freedom House, Freedom in the World report
Liberal democracy
Majority rule
Media democracy
Netocracy
Poll
Polyarchy
Sociocracy
Sortition
Democracy subversion
Voting
[edit] Notes
The United Nations has declared 15 September as the International Day of Democracy.[69]
[edit] References
^ Demokratia, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus
^ a b Democracy is people who rule the government directly.BBC History of democracy
^ The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
^ Liberty and justice for some at Economist.com
^ a b Aristotle, Politics.1317b
^ R. Alan Dahl, I. Shapiro, J. A. Cheibub, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press 2003, ISBN 0262541475, Google Books link
^ M. Hénaff, T. B. Strong, Public Space and Democracy, University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 0816633878
^ G. F. Gaus, C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory, SAGE, 2004, p. 143-145, ISBN 0761967877, Google Books link
^ The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 26, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ A. Barak, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 40, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ T. R. Williamson, Problems in American Democracy, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 36, ISBN 1419143166, Google Books link
^ U. K. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law." Journal of Law and Society, 18:3 (1991). pp. 353-364
^ Substantively fairness means equality among all citizens in all respects i.e. equality in chances, in starting point etc.
^ Procedural fairness means that the rules of the elections are clear and set in advance
^ A. Barak,The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 27, ISBN 069112017X, Google Books link
^ H. Kelsen, Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Part 2: Foundations of Democracy (Oct., 1955), pp. 1-101
^ a b c John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC - 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994, ISBN 0198279345
^ Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, Origin of Democracy in Ancient Greece, University of California Press, 2007, ISBN 0520245628, Google Books link
^ Weatherford, J. McIver (1988). Indian givers: how the Indians of the America transformed the world. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 117 - 150. ISBN 0-449-90496-2.
^ "The Global Trend" chart on Freedom in the World 2007: Freedom Stagnation Amid Pushback Against Democracy published by Freedom House
^ Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
^ Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948.
^ Mahan, Alfred Thayer, "The United States Looking Outward," in The Interest of America in Sea Power. New York: Harper & Bros., 1897.
^ Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents' War. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1967.
^ Taussig, Capt. J. K., "Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion," in Quarterdeck and Fo'c'sle. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963
^ Hegemony Or Survival, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 0-8050-7400-7
^ Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 0374523495
^ Class Warfare, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 1-5675-1092-2
^ Article on direct democracy by Imraan Buccus
^ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. General Idea of the Revolution See also commentary by Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution
^ Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
^ Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm
^ Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century
^ a b Iroquois Contributions to Modern Democracy and Communism. Bagley, Carol L.; Ruckman, Jo Ann. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, v7 n2 p53-72 1983
^ a b Native American Societies and the Evolution of Democracy in America, 1600-1800 Bruce E. Johansen Ethnohistory, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 279-290
^ Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples By Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, Will Sanders. Page 237
^ Political Analysis in Plato's Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Aristotle Book 6
^ Bernal, p. 359
^ Snell, Daniel C. (2001), Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, Brill Publishers, p. 18, ISBN 9004120106
^ ANCIENT ROME FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES DOWN TO 476 A.D
^ Dio. 2.39
^ Larsen, J. A. O., Demokratia, Classical Philology, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), p. 45-46
^ de Sainte Croix G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, Ithaca, 1981
^ a b The National Archives Exhibitions & Learning online Citizenship Struggle for democracy
^ The National Archives Exhibitions & Learning online Citizenship Rise of Parliament
^ Activity Four
^ Omdirigeringsmeddelande
^ "Melanesia Historical and Geographical: the Solomon Islands and the New Hebrides", Southern Cross n°1, London: 1950
^ Jacqueline Newmyer, "Present from the start: John Adams and America", Oxonian Review of Books, 2005, vol 4 issue 2
^ Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (1974) 117-158. ISBN 0826303102
^ The French Revolution II
^ AGE OF DICTATORS: TOTALITARIANISM IN THE INTER-WAR PERIOD
^ Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute
^ BBC NEWS World South Asia Country profiles Country profile: India
^ freedomhouse.org: Tables and Charts
^ Aristotle, The Politics
^ [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.
^ Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0-06-041750-1.
^ Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300049382
^ democracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ republic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775
^ Republican Government: Introduction
^ Plato, the Republic of Plato (London: J.M Dent & Sons LTD.; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc.), 558-C.
^ James Madison, Federalist No. 10
^ Abdul Qadir Bin Abdul Aziz, The Criticism of Democracy and the Illustration of its Reality
^ GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECLARES 15 SEPTEMBER INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DEMOCRACY; ALSO ELECTS 18 MEMBERS TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
