Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government
in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making
decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a
parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English
Dictionary. Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the
people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in
which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly
or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically
held free elections."
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists
of four key elements:
A political system for choosing and replacing the government
through free and fair elections.
The active participation of the people, as citizens, in
politics and civic life.
Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply
equally to all citizens.
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía)
"rule of the people", which was found from δῆμος (dêmos)
"people" and κράτος (krátos) "power" or "rule",
in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek
city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía)
"rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in
opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The
political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic
citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from
political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout
ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class
until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern
democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The
English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle
Latin equivalents.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is
either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is
held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these
oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because
contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic
elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny,
thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to
oust them without the need for a revolution.
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic
forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens
executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all
eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the political
decision making. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible
citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly
through elected representatives; this is called a representative democracy.
Characteristics
No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal
equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important
characteristics. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal
before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example,
in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable
restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the
freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties
which are typically protected by a constitution.
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental
principles: 1) upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels
of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals
and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles
of upward control and political equality.
The term "democracy" is sometimes used as
shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy
that may include 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. Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal
and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also
present.
In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which
originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary
sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence. In the United States, separation
of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India parliamentary
sovereignty is subject to a Constitution which includes judicial review. Other
uses of "democracy" include that of direct democracy. Though the term
"democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state,
the principles also are applicable to private organisations.
Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of
democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by
the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of
individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal"
representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both
substantively and procedurally[citation needed]. Furthermore, freedom of
political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are
considered to be essential rights that allow eligible citizens to be adequately
informed and able to vote according to their own interests.
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy
is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of
their society. With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the
collective will of the all voters, democracy can also be characterised as a
form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in
which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.
While representative democracy is sometimes equated with the
republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has
encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. Many democracies are constitutional
monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.
History
Ancient origins
 |
|
Cleisthenes,
"father of Athenian
democracy",
modern bust.
|
The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient
Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical
antiquity. Led by Cleisthenes, Athenians established what is generally held as
the first democracy in 508–507 BC. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the
father of Athenian democracy."
Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and
it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of ordinary citizens
to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices, and a
legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens. All eligible citizens
were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city
state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners
(μέτοικοι métoikoi), non-landowners, and males under 20 years old.
Of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 inhabitants of Athens,
there were between 30,000 and 60,000 citizens. The exclusion of large parts of
the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient
understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship
was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns.
Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that
decisions were made by the assembled people, but also the most direct in the
sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled
the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved
constantly in the public business. Even though the rights of the individual
were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient
Greeks had no word for "rights"), the Athenians enjoyed their
liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was
not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule
of another person.
Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700 BC. The Apella
was an assembly of the people, held once a month, in which every male citizen
of age 30 and above could participate. In the Apella, Spartans elected leaders
and cast votes by range voting and shouting. Aristotle called this
"childish," as compared with the stone voting ballots used by the
Athenians. Sparta adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any bias
voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in the early democratic
elections.
Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to
many aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes
in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more
weight through a system of gerrymandering, so most high officials, including
members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families. In addition,
the Roman Republic was the first government in the western world to have a
Republic as a nation-state, although it didn't have much of a democracy. The
Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were
preserved. Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political
thinkers over the centuries, and today's modern representative democracies
imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which
supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives, and
which had an elected or nominated leader. Other cultures, such as the Iroquis
Nation in the Americas between around 1450 and 1600 AD also developed a form of
democratic society before they came in contact with the Europeans. This
indicates that forms of democracy may have been invented in other societies
around the world.
Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving
elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the
population. These included:
- the Frostating in Norway
- the Althing in Iceland,
- the Løgting in the Faeroe Islands,
- Scandinavian Things,
- the South Indian Kingdom of the Chola in the state of Tamil Nadu in the Indian Subcontinent had an electoral system at 920 A.D., about 1100 years ago,
- Carantania, old Slavic/Slovenian principality, the Ducal Inauguration from 7th to 15th century,
- the upper-caste election of the Gopala in the Bengal region of the Indian Subcontinent,
- the Holy Roman Empire's Hoftag and Imperial Diets (mostly Nobles and Clergy),
- the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (10% of population),
- certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, Siena and San Marino
- the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland,
- the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia,
- The States in Tirol and Switzerland,
- the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan,
- Volta-Nigeric societies such as Igbo.
- the Mekhk-Khel system of the Nakh peoples of the North Caucasus, by which representatives to the Council of Elders for each teip (clan) were popularly elected by that teip's members.
- The 10th Sikh Guru Gobind Singh ji (Nanak X) established world's first Sikh democratic republic state ending the aristocracy on day of 1st Vasakh 1699 and Gurbani as sole constitution of this Sikh republic.
Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or
feudal lords.
The Kouroukan Fouga divided the Mali Empire into ruling
clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the Gbara.
However, the charter made Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a
democratic republic. A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack
republics of Ukraine in the 16th and 17th centuries: Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian
Sich. The highest post – the Hetman – was elected by the representatives from
the country's districts.
 |
| Magna Carta, 1215, England |
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions
on the power of kings written into Magna Carta (1215), which explicitly
protected certain rights of the King's subjects and implicitly supported what
became the English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom
against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The first representative
national assembly was Simon de Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. The
emergence of petitioning is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being
used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. However,
the power to call parliament remained at the pleasure of the monarch.
Modern era
Early modern period
During the early modern period, the power of the Parliament
of England continually increased. Passage of the Petition of Right in 1628 and Habeas
Corpus Act in 1679 established certain liberties and remain in effect. The idea
of a political party took form with groups freely debating rights to political
representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil Wars
(1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted
in 1689, which codified certain rights and liberties, and is still in effect.
The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of
speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that,
unlike much of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not prevail.
In North America, representative government began in Jamestown,
Virginia, with the election of the House of Burgesses (forerunner of the Virginia
General Assembly) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established
colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic and which
contributed to the democratic development of the United States; although these
local assemblies had some small amounts of devolved power, the ultimate
authority was held by the Crown and the English Parliament. The Puritans (Pilgrim
Fathers), Baptists, and Quakers who founded these colonies applied the
democratic organisation of their congregations also to the administration of
their communities in worldly matters.
18th and 19th centuries
 |
| The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy. |
The first Parliament of Great Britain was established in
1707, after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland
under the Acts of Union. Although the monarch increasingly became a figurehead,
only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a
few percent of the population (less than 3% as late as 1780).
The creation of the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755
marked the first nation in modern history to adopt a democratic constitution
(all men and women above age of 25 could vote). This Corsican Constitution was
the first based on Enlightenment principles and included female suffrage,
something that was not granted in most other democracies until the 20th
century.
In the American colonial period before 1776, and for some
time after, often only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved
Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the
franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with more
widespread social, economic and political equality. Although not described as a
democracy by the founding fathers, they shared a determination to root the American
experiment in the principles of natural freedom and equality.
The American Revolution led to the adoption of the United
States Constitution in 1787, the oldest surviving, still active, governmental codified
constitution. The Constitution provided for an elected government and protected
civil rights and liberties for some, but did not end slavery nor extend voting
rights in the United States beyond white male property owners (about 6% of the
population). The Bill of Rights in 1791 set limits on government power to
protect personal freedoms but had little impact on judgements by the courts for
the first 130 years after ratification.
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 in 1792. However, in the early 19th
century, little of democracy - as theory, practice, or even as word - remained
in the North Atlantic world.
During this period, slavery remained a social and economic
institution in places around the world. This was particularly the case in the
eleven states of the American South. A variety of organisations were
established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to
locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.
The United Kingdom's Slave Trade Act 1807 banned the trade
across the British Empire, enforced internationally by the Royal Navy's West
Africa Squadron under treaties Britain negotiated with other nations. As the
voting franchise in the U.K. was increased, it also was made more uniform in a
series of reforms beginning with the Reform Act of 1832. In 1833, the United
Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act which took effect across the British
Empire.
Universal male suffrage was established in France in March
1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848. In 1848, several revolutions
broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal
constitutions and more democratic government.
In the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in
the United States had grown to four million, and in Reconstruction after the
Civil War (late 1860s), the newly freed slaves became citizens with a nominal
right to vote for men. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until
after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by
the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
20th and 21st centuries
The number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity
IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.
20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in
successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars,
revolutions, decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances. World
War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted
in the creation of new nation-states from Europe, most of them at least
nominally democratic.
In the 1920s democracy flourished and women's suffrage
advanced, 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.
World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in
western Europe. The democratisation of the American, British, and French
sectors of occupied Germany (disputed), 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 fell into the non-democratic Soviet
bloc.
The war was followed by decolonisation, and again most of
the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India
emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so. Countries that
were once part of the British Empire often adopted the British Westminster
system.
By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally
democracies, although most 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 democratisation 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
Soviet oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation 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.
The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the
1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of
liberalisation 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, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan,
and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.
According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral
democracies (up from 40 in 1972). According to World Forum on Democracy,
electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and
constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal
democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of
basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38
percent of the global population.
In 2010 the United Nations declared September 15 the International
Day of Democracy.
Measurement of democracy
Country ratings from Freedom House's Freedom in the World
2015 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2014.
Free (89) Partly Free (55) Not
Free (51)
Countries designated "electoral
democracies" in Freedom House's 2015 survey "Freedom in the
World", covering the year 2014.
Several freedom indices are used to measure democracy:
Freedom in the World published each year since 1972 by the
U.S.-based Freedom House ranks countries by political rights and civil
liberties that are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Countries are assessed as free, partly free, or unfree.
Worldwide Press Freedom Index is published each year since
2002 (except that 2011 was combined with 2012) by France-based Reporters
Without Borders. Countries are assessed as having a good situation, a satisfactory
situation, noticeable problems, a difficult situation, or a very serious
situation.
Freedom of the Press published each year since 1980 by Freedom
House.
The Index of Freedom in the World is an index measuring
classical civil liberties published by Canada's Fraser Institute, Germany's
Liberales Institute, and the U.S. Cato Institute. It is not currently included
in the table below.
The CIRI Human Rights Data Project measures a range of
human, civil, women's and workers rights. It is now hosted by the University of
Connecticut. It was created in 1994. In its 2011 report, the U.S. was ranked
38th in overall human rights.
The Democracy Index, published by the U.K.-based Economist
Intelligence Unit, is an assessment of countries' democracy. Countries are
rated to be either Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, or Authoritarian
regimes. Full democracies, flawed democracies, and hybrid regimes are
considered to be democracies, and the authoritarian nations are considered to
be dictatorial. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different
categories.
The U.S.-based Polity data series is a widely used data
series in political science research. It contains coded annual information on
regime authority characteristics and transitions for all independent states
with greater than 500,000 total population and covers the years 1800–2006.
Polity's conclusions about a state's level of democracy are based on an
evaluation of that state's elections for competitiveness, openness and level of
participation. Data from this series is not currently included in the table
below. The Polity work is sponsored by the Political Instability Task Force
(PITF) which is funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. However, the
views expressed in the reports are the authors' alone and do not represent the
views of the US Government.
MaxRange, a dataset defining level of democracy and
institutional structure(regime-type) on a 100-graded scale where every value
represents a unique regimetype. Values are sorted from 1-100 based on level of
democracy and political accountability. MaxRange defines the value
corresponding to all states and every month from 1789 to 2015 and updating.
MaxRange is created and developed by Max Range, and is now associated with the
university of Halmstad, Sweden
Types of democracies
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not
structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the
legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation
of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too
much power and destroy the democracy.
World's states coloured by form of government1
|
1This map was compiled according to the Wikipedia list of
countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2Several states
constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by
outsiders as authoritarian states. This map presents only the de jure form of
government, and not the de facto degree of democracy.
The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one
another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another
and can co-exist in a single system.
Basic forms
Representative democracy is a form of democracy in which
people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives as opposed
to a direct democracy, a form of democracy in which people vote on policy
initiatives directly.
Direct
A Landsgemeinde (in 2009) of the Canton of Glarus, an
example of direct democracy in Switzerland.
In Switzerland, without needing to register, every citizen
receives ballot papers and information brochures for each vote (and can send it
back by post). Switzerland has a direct democracy system and votes are organised
about four times a year.
Main article: 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 use of a lot system, a characteristic of
Athenian democracy, is unique to direct democracies. In this system, important
governmental and administrative tasks are performed by citizens picked from a
lottery. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:
Change constitutional laws,
Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,
Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking
them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking
a campaign promise.
Within modern-day representative governments, certain
electoral tools like referendums, citizens' initiatives and recall elections
are referred to as forms of direct democracy. Direct democracy as a government
system currently only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.
Representative
Representative democracy involves the election of government
officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically
elected then it is called a democratic republic. The most common mechanisms
involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Most western countries have representative systems.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic
representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the
entire electorate through 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 the people's
interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best
to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon representative democracy,
pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms' with democracy
Parliamentary
Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where
government is appointed by, or can be dismissed by, representatives as opposed
to a "presidential rule" wherein the president is both head of state
and the head of government and is elected by the voters. 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.
Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister
at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the
expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence
where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from
office by a majority support for his or her dismissal. In some countries, the
Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and
typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that
they are in good favour with the public as to get re-elected. In other
parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority
government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important
feature of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "loyal opposition".
The essence of the concept is that the second largest political party (or
coalition) opposes the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining
loyal to the state and its democratic principles.
Presidential
Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects
the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the
head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers.
The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time.
Elections typically have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president
has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet
members.
The president cannot be easily removed from office by the
legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any
more easily. This provides some measure of separation of powers. In consequence
however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of
separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with
the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential
democracy is not very common outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and
Southeast Asia.
A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which
the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular
powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country.
Hybrid or semi-direct
Some modern democracies that are predominantly
representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that
are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of
representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies, semi-direct
democracies or participatory democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some
U.S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.
The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy. At the
federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal
popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament.
Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer
103 questions (during the same period, French citizens participated in only two
referendums). Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been
put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10%
of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a
version of the initiative rewritten by government.
In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy
exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities
provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot
measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and
the vast majority of states allow for referendums. Examples include the
extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state
that has more than 20 million voters.
In New England Town meetings are often used, especially in
rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of
government, with a local direct democracy and a state government which is
representative. For example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in
March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are
voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political
matters.
Variants
Constitutional monarchy
Queen Elizabeth II, a constitutional monarch.
Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned
powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often
gradually, merely symbolic roles. For example, in the predecessor states to the
United Kingdom, constitutional monarchy began to emerge and has continued
uninterrupted since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and passage of the Bill of
Rights 1689.
In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with
the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria,
Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). An elected president, with or without
significant powers, became the head of state in these countries.
Élite upper houses of legislatures, which often had lifetime
or hereditary tenure, were common in many nations. Over time, these either had
their powers limited (as with the British House of Lords) or else became
elective and remained powerful (as with the Australian Senate).
Republic
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.
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and
often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean
direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining
basic rights; 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,
was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a
voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting
after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what
have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you
can keep it."
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 moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise
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.
In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale
decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free
to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or
"vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal
government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with
formal government elsewhere.
Socialist
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/or 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 centralised nature. Because of
their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists,
Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through 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.)
Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly
always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.
— Che Guevara, Speech, Uruguay, 1961
Anarchist
Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether
they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of
democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in
which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on the minority,
even when unanimous. However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticised individualist
anarchists for opposing democracy, and says "majority rule" is
consistent with anarchism.
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. Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as
an anarchist but argued for "a better government" and is cited as an
inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the
position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent.
Anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists and other right-anarchists
oppose institutional democracy as they consider it in conflict with widely held
moral values and ethical principles and their conception of individual rights.
The a priori Rothbardian argument is that the state is a coercive institution
which necessarily violates the non-aggression principle (NAP). Some
right-anarchists also criticise democracy on a posteriori consequentialist
grounds, in terms of inefficiency or disability in bringing about maximisation
of individual liberty. They maintain the people who participate in democratic
institutions are foremost driven by economic self-interest.
Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition
chooses 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 Renaissance Florence and is
still used in modern jury selection.
Consociational
A consociational democracy allows for simultaneous majority
votes in two or more ethno-religious constituencies, and policies are enacted
only if they gain majority support from both or all of them.
Consensus democracy
A consensus democracy, in contrast, would not be
dichotomous. Instead, decisions would be based on a multi-option approach, and
policies would be enacted if they gained sufficient support, either in a purely
verbal agreement, or via a consensus vote - a multi-option preference vote. If
the threshold of support were at a sufficiently high level, minorities would be
as it were protected automatically. Furthermore, any voting would be
ethno-colour blind.
Supranational
Qualified majority voting 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.
Inclusive
Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political
project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political
democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic
democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the
social realm, i.e. self-management in places of work and education, and
ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The
theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political
philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and
was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature and its successor The
International Journal of Inclusive Democracy.
The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy
is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a
given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding
villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today
can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of
administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular
face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is
purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of
representatives in representative democracy.
The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen
body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be
delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for
example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal
councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis,
and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and
confederal bodies should have specific mandates.
Participatory politics
A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of
democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council structure. The guiding philosophy
is that people should have decision making power in proportion to how much they
are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely
autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates
to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect
only the population affected by that council.
A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a
check on the tyranny of the majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on
which issue. Delegates may vote differently from how their sending council
might wish, but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending
council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any
time via votes of most lower-level councils, however, not everything is a
referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work
in tandem with a participatory economy.
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World
Federalism, is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global
scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification
for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional
democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition,
cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are
affected by decisions also have a say in them.
According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global
problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The
general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the
values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent
resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the
state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international
organisations, e.g. the United Nations, as well as the creation of new
institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public
control over, and accountability in, international politics.
Cosmopolitan Democracy has been promoted, among others, by
physicist Albert Einstein, writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist George Monbiot, and
professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi. The creation of the International
Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of
this type of cosmopolitan democracy.
Creative Democracy
Creative Democracy is advocated by American philosopher John
Dewey. The main idea about Creative Democracy is that democracy encourages
individual capacity building and the interaction among the society. Dewey
argues that democracy is a way of life in his work of ""Creative
Democracy: The Task Before Us" and
an experience built on faith in human nature, faith in human beings, and faith
in working with others. Democracy, in Dewey's view, is a moral ideal requiring
actual effort and work by people; it is not an institutional concept that exists
outside of ourselves. "The task of democracy", Dewey concludes,
"is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in
which all share and to which all contribute".
Non-governmental
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles
and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other
kinds of groups. Many non-governmental organisations decide policy and
leadership by voting. Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by
democratic elections. Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the
principle of one share, one vote. An analogous system, that fuses elements of
democracy with sharia law, has been termed islamocracy.
Theory
A marble statue of Aristotle.
Aristotle
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity),
with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person
(tyranny or today autocracy/absolute monarchy). 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).
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 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.
— Aristotle, Politics 1317b (Book 6, Part II)
Rationale
Among modern political theorists, there are three contending
conceptions of the fundamental rationale for democracy: aggregative democracy, deliberative
democracy, and radical democracy.
Aggregative
The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of
the democratic processes is to solicit citizens' preferences and 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.
Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism,
democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given 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. Contemporary
proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard
Posner.
According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other
hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on
legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to
support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises
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 their left and the other
half to their right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents
the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites
competing for votes. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties
are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments.
Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.
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.
Deliberative
Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy
is government by deliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative
democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be
preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences
that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among
decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such
as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of
interest groups. If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after
authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using
a form of majority rule.
Radical
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.
Criticism
Protests.
Inefficiencies
Economists like Milton Friedman have strongly criticised the
efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational
voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political
issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few
issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. A common example often quoted to
substantiate this point is the high economic development achieved by China (a
non-democratic country) as compared to India (a democratic country).
Popular rule as a façade
The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano
Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to
mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the
unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the
masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that
democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from
oppression to manipulation. As Louis Brandeis once professed, "We may have
democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we
can't have both."
All political parties in Canada are now cautious about
criticism of the high level of immigration, because, as noted by The Globe and
Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for
suggesting that immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000." As
Professor of Economics Don J. DeVoretz pointed out, "In a liberal
democracy such as Canada, the following paradox persists. Even though the
majority of respondents answer yes to the question: 'Are there too many
immigrant arrivals each year?' immigrant numbers continue to rise until a
critical set of economic costs appear."
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." In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of
government from best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a
serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only
Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest
men), is a just form of government.
James Madison critiqued direct democracy (which he referred
to simply as "democracy") in Federalist No. 10, arguing that
representative democracy—which he described using the term
"republic"—is a preferable form of government, saying:
"... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths." Madison offered that republics were
superior to democracies because republics safeguarded against tyranny of the
majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a
republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is
enjoyed by a large over a small republic".
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 priorities.
This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of
having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually
short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of
coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners
themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support
from the government.
Fraudulent elections
In representative democracies, it may not benefit incumbents
to conduct fair elections. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections
stay in office 2.5 times as long as those who permit fair elections.
Democracies in countries with high per capita income have been found to be less
prone to violence, but in countries with low incomes the tendency is the
reverse. Election misconduct is more likely in countries with low per capita
incomes, small populations, rich in natural resources, and a lack of
institutional checks and balances. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as
Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category.
Governments that have frequent elections tend to have
significantly more stable economic policies than those governments who have
infrequent elections. However, this trend does not apply to governments where
fraudulent elections are common.
Opposition
Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition
from the previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition
from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government within a
non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution.
Post-Enlightenment ideologies such as marxism, fascism, nazism,
and neo-fundamentalism oppose democracy on different grounds, generally citing
that the concept of democracy as a constant process is flawed and detrimental
to a preferable course of development.
Development
Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and
social factors supporting the evolution of democracy. Cultural factors like Protestantism
influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human rights and
political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and
tolerance has been practiced).
Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset,
1959). In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in
living standards has convinced people that they can take their basic survival
for granted, and led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is
highly correlated to democracy.
Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of
weapons are the main predictor of democracy: Democracy tends to emerge only
when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use. By the
1800s, guns were the best weapon available, and in America, almost everyone
could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily.
Governments couldn't do any better: It became the age of mass armies of citizen
soldiers with guns Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen
soldier and democracy.
Recently established theories stress the relevance of education
and human capital and within them of cognitive ability to increasing tolerance,
rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and
cognitive ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make
rational choices, better information processing) and an ethical effect (support
of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on
intelligence.
Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of
why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent
statistical analyses have challenged modernisation theory by demonstrating that
there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to
emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal. Neither
is there convincing evidence that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents
democratisation, despite a vast theoretical literature called "The
Resource Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between
citizen taxation and government accountability, the key to representative
democracy. The lack of evidence for these conventional theories of
democratisation have led researchers to search for the "deep"
determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or
demographic.
In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular
method of reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other
areas such as entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning,
education, art, literature, science and theology has been criticised as
"the reigning dogma of our time". The argument is that applying a
populist or market-driven approach to art and literature for example, means
that innovative creative work goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the
argument is that essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken.
Science, which is a truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the
idea that the correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.
Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be
fully realised, democracy may be developed automatically in the act of striving
for democracy: "The peasant in the fable, when on his death-bed, tells his
sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man's death the sons
dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But
their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative
well-being. The treasure in the fable may well symbolise democracy."
Dr. Harald Wydra, in his book Communism and The Emergence of
Democracy, maintains that the development of democracy should not be viewed as
a purely procedural or as a static concept but rather as an ongoing
"process of meaning formation". Drawing on Claude Lefort's idea of
the empty place of power, that "power emanates from the people [...] but
is the power of nobody", he remarks that democracy is reverence to a
symbolic mythical authority as in reality, there is no such thing as the people
or demos. Democratic political figures are not supreme rulers but rather
temporary guardians of an empty place. Any claim to substance such as the
collective good, the public interest or the will of the nation is subject to
the competitive struggle and times of for gaining the authority of office and
government. The essence of the democratic system is an empty place, void of
real people which can only be temporarily filled and never be appropriated. The
seat of power is there, but remains open to constant change. As such, what
"democracy" is or what is "democratic" progresses
throughout history as a continual and potentially never ending process of
social construction.
In 2010 a study by a German military think tank has analyzed
how peak oil might change the global economy. The study raises fears for the
survival of democracy itself. It suggests that parts of the population could perceive
the upheaval triggered by peak oil as a general systemic crisis. This would
create "room for ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms
of government".
No comments:
Post a Comment