Democracy
Democracy, is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek
demos, "people," and
kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" are central to various definitions of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with
oligarchies and
autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political
state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
Direct democracy, classically termed
pure democracy[A. Democracy in World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc., 2006. B. Pure democracy entry in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. C. Pure democracy entry in American Heritage Dictionary"], is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called
direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare, due to the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually
city-states. The most notable was the ancient
Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries as
Switzerland, where certain
cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there's also
referendum.
Representative democracy is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many
proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or
constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as
referenda.
Some
one party Communist states have described themselves as democratic, like the
German Democratic Republic. They explicitly gave the political power to the members, or to some of the members, of the ruling
Communist Party, following the principles of
democratic centralism and
vanguard party.
[[Image:Freedom House world map 2005.png|thumb|350px|This map reflects the findings of {{Freedom House}}'s survey {{Freedom in the World 2006}}, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.
]]
Liberal democracy
Today, democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy, a form of
representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives and the
will of the majority to exercise
decision-making power is subject to the
rule of law, and usually moderated by a
constitution which emphasizes the protection of
liberties,
freedoms, and
rights of individuals and
minorities. This form of government has become increasingly common in recent times, so that almost half of the world's population now lives under liberal democratic governments.[
1]
Conversely, an
illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some
post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin.
The history of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts and definitions used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy can range from the very broadly based institutions in which adult
universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected
monarch.
[[Image:Claims_of_democracy.png|right|350px|thumb|Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map shows the official claims made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of {{June 2006}}.
]]
Athenian democracy is the earliest well-documented democratic system, and the word democracy was coined in
Ancient Greece in the
5th century BC. Records are intermittent from the time before this era, although there is contemporary documentation from
Chios, probably from 575- 550 BC, of a council and assembly. It appears that voting rights were gradually expanded from a small group of landed aristocracy to eventually all eligible males who had completed mandatory military training, usually at the age of 20.
Women,
slaves, and
metics were excluded from this citizenship, which leads to estimates that around one tenth or less of the population of Athens was eligible to vote. All Athenian citizens were free to vote on creation of laws, a segment could vote on when to go to war, and anyone could speak in the Assembly. This type of government is known as a form of
direct democracy. Athens also had representative leaders, most selected by
allotment rather than elected.Athenian democracy was effectively ended by the city's defeat by the
Macedonians who abolished it in 323 BC.
The seeds of representative democracy were arguably started in the
Roman Republic. During the Middle Ages, there were various shades of democracies varying from very inclusive
oligarchies to attempts at full democracy, such as the
Althing, in Iceland, the Italian city-states of
medieval Italy, the
tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the
Veche in Slavic countries, and Scandinavian
assemblies. And democratic principles or elements have also been claimed for societies ranging from the early
Indian republics (c. 500 BCE) to the
Iroquois Confederacy in North America (second millennium CE to the present).
The
Parliament of England was the first major step towards a fully democratic system during the Middle Ages. It 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. Parliament was initially elected by only a few percent of the population 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, England became a
constitutional monarchy with regular sittings of parliament, although still subject to the monarch. During this time the two party system of the
Whigs and
Tories also developed. Parliament then gradually gained more decision-making and
legislative powers until the reign of
Queen Victoria at which time the monarch essentially became a figurehead.
The
United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy, [
2] with a relatively wide franchise (although initially limited by property, gender, and race restrictions, and the existence of slavery) and the
United States Constitution protected rights and liberties. The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789 (though it was written in 1787).
Later 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 1791, Poland followed with the
Constitution of May 3, which was Europe's first (and the world's second) codified national constitution.
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.
20th century waves of democracy
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 nominally democratic. The rise of
fascist movements, and fascist regimes in
Nazi Germany,
Mussolini in Italy,
Francisco Franco's regime in
Spain and
António de Oliveira Salazar's regime in
Portugal, limited the extent of democracy in the 1930s, and gave the impression of an "Age of Dictators". The status of most
colonies remained unaffected.
World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the
occupied Germany and the
occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of
regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe was forced into the non-democratic
Soviet bloc. The war was followed by
decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.
In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had a predominantly
free-market economy 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, later it 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. Several of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 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 democratisation and
liberalisation of the former Soviet 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 democratic trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa.
The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. 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" theory.
Conceptions of democracy
Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.
On one account, called 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 on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not very intelligent.
Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy [Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0061330086.]. Contemporary proponents of minimalism include
William Riker,
Adam Przeworksi, and
Richard Posner.
A second view is called the aggregative conception of democracy. It holds that government should produce laws and policies are close to the views of the median voter — with half to his left and the other half to his right.
Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book
An Economic Theory of Democracy.
[Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0060417501.]A third conception,
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. The modern proponents of this form of government are led by
Jurgen Habermas.
The three conceptions above assume a representative democracy.
Direct democracy, a fourth conception, 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.
Another conception of democracy is that it means political equality between all citizens. The typical modern democracy relies on the assumption that the majority of the votes establishes the will of the people, as opposed to majority rule of the entire demos (population). This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting, or for limiting the influence of the wealthy, like
Campaign finance reform.[
3][
4]
These conceptions of democracy are based on the question of what a democracy
ought to be. A fifth and quite different conception of democracy is based on the assumption that a democracy performs a
function for the members of a collective who create it and that individuals in a democracy play
roles. This conception assumes that the actual people who occupy these roles and perform this function in a real democracy are self-interested. The conception was invented by economists and is sometimes called an economic approach to democracy. It is represented by the field of
Public Choice.
Another conception of democracy is that it is
majority rule and is justified under
utilitarian reasoning. The advantanges of democracy seen under this conception is that the majority of the population are satisfied with the governance they live under. The disadvantage is that the
minority live under the power of the majority sometimes termed the
tyranny of the majority, or
mob rule. This can lead to the
marginalisation of large portions of a population if the will of the
majority is not restrained by a strong and just
constitution and legal system.
"Democracy" vs. "Republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.
In constitutional theory and in modern historical usages and especially when considering the works of the
Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to
direct democracy, whilst a
representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a
republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States
conservative and
libertarian circles.
The original framers of the
United States Constitution were notably
cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of
majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example,
James Madison, in
Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority.
[James Madison, (November 22, 1787). "The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection", Daily Advertiser. New York. Republished by Wikisource.] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major
open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the
United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure.
Modern definitions of the term "republic", however, refer to any
state with an elective
head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary
hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and
constitutional monarchies adhering to
parliamentarism. Older
elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.
The democratic state
Though there remains some
philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy (see philosopher
Charles Blattberg,
From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ch. 5. ISBN 0-19-829688-6) what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):
* That there is a
demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the
nation, and adult
citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
* That there is a
territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the
nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial
motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
* That there is a
decision-making procedure, which is either direct, in instances such as a
referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a
parliament.
* That the procedure is regarded as
legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted.
Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the
state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
* That the procedure is
effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
* That, in the case of nation-states, the state must be
sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.
Anarchists oppose the concept of the state, including democratic ones, as inherently corrupt and coercive. For example,
Alexander Berkman [ Alexander Berkman: Prison Memoirs; the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, ] refused to recognize the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Many
social anarchists tend to support a non-hierarchical and non-coercive system of
direct democracy within free associations. However there is some disagreement between anarchists. Many expect society to operate by consensus, as in
News from Nowhere or
The Dispossessed.
Some
Individualist anarchists are vocal opponents of all or some forms of democracy.
Benjamin Tucker said, "Rule is the evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule....What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies."
[Eltzbacher, Paul. Anarchism. Plainview, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1960, p. 129.] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon says, "Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities (see
tyranny of the majority), the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people."
[Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Demokratie und Republik, S. 10.] According to Robert Graham, "in
General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and
majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of
direct democracy designed to replace
representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions." He says, that for Proudhon a "person is only obligated to do that which he has freely undertaken to do" and therefore, the "only form of direct democracy compatible with this conception of obligation is one in which it is recognized that a
minority which has refused to consent to a
majority decision has assumed no obligation to abide by it. Majority decisions are not binding on the minority. Any agreement to the contrary would itself be invalid because it would require the minority to forfeit its autonomy and substantive freedom."
[Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution] Central to Proudhon's notion of contract is the idea of self-assumed obligation. Hence, Proudhon's opposition to Rousseau's
social contract. He says, "What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau's] idea...The social contract is an agreement of man with man...by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other."
[Proudhon, Pierre. General Idea of the Revolution of the 19th Century]Some
far right and
monarchist groups also oppose various forms of democracy.
While this article deals mainly with democracy as a system to rule countries, voting and representation have been used to govern many other kinds of communities and organisations.
* Many
non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.
* Christian
monachal orders often appointed their
abbots through the votes of the monks. Many
Utopian reformers (
Thomas More included) have been inspired by monachal communities.
*
Caribbean pirate crews elected their captains by voting, contrasting with the ruthless hierarchical system of the navies of their time.
* In business,
companies elect their boards by votes weighed by the number of
shares held by each owner.
*
Trade unions usually choose their leadership through democratic elections.
*
Cooperatives give each person (a worker or a consumer) one vote.
*
List of democratic states*
List of types of democracy*
Rationality and power in democracies
*
Journal of Democracy*
Freedom in the World*
Democracy in the
Open Directory Project*
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy*
Democracy Watch (International) — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization.
*
IFES — supporting the building of democratic societies around the world*
Democracy at large magazine — a quarterly magazine designed for professionals interested in democracy development worldwide*
dgGovernance — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building
*
the site of the Association for the School of Democracy a university-level research and training pluri- and transdisciplinary school of democracy
*
Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict.
*
New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea*
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria
*
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance*
openDemocracy — Global democracy network using information, participation and debate to empower citizens.
*
Information Repository for Pro-Democracy Activism in the USACritique*
The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty*
Riff-Raff — Democracy as the Community of Capital - A Provisional Critique of Democracy
*
Why democracy is wrong*
An Islamic Critique of Democracy*
Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe*
Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn*
Churchill on Democracy Revisited by J.K. Baltzersen*
Democracy is More Than Just VotingAlternatives and improvements - see also
Wikocracy,
E-democracy and
Futarchy*
Democracy with a small "d"*
Democratic Manifesto*
Conducting new experiments with democracy,
Ethics & Democracy*
Democratic Deficit*
On Democracy by James Russell Lowell*
simpol.org — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization.
*
Students for Global Democracy*
Wiki Democracy — "an experiment that asks: if there were no laws in the United States, what laws would you impose on America?"
