Learn more about Democracy

Jump to: navigation, search
Forms of government

This series is part of
the Politics series

List of forms of government

Politics Portal · edit

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy,<ref></ref> but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.


[edit] Varieties


This series is part of
the Politics and the
Forms of government series

Politics Portal · edit

Main article: Democracy (varieties)

The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used at different periods of history in different contexts. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming or claimed to be democratic have ranged very broadly. For example:

  • Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (monarchy/tyranny or today autocracy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system.[3][4].
  • Sortition/Allotment have formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population:[5] For example, Aristotle described the law courts in Athens which were selected by lot as democratic<ref>Aristotle, Politics 2.1273b</ref> and described elections as oligarchic.<ref>Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b</ref>
  • Certain tribes organised themselves using forms of participatory democracy. [6]
  • Democracy is used to describe systems seeking consensus (see Deliberative democracy).[7]
  • Many socialists have argued that socialism necessarily implies a form of democracy (see Democratic socialism).

Main varieties include:

[edit] Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens vote on all major policy decisions. It is called direct because, in the classical forms, there are no intermediaries or representatives. Current examples include many small civic organizations (like college faculties) and town meetings in New England (usually in towns under 10,000 population). Critics note that it sometimes emphasises the act of voting more than other democratic procedures such as free speech and press and civic organisations. That is, these critics argue, democracy is more than merely a procedural issue.<ref> Jane J. Mansbridge. Beyond Adversary Democracy (1983)</ref>

All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. Today, a limited direct democracy exists in some Swiss cantons that practice it in its literal form. Direct democracy obviously becomes difficult when the electorate is large--for example some 30,000 or more citizens were eligible in Athenian democracy. However, the extensive use of referenda, as in California, is akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with over 20 million potential voters.<ref>John M. Allswang. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998 (2000) (ISBN 0804738211) </ref> Modern direct democracy tries to accommodate this problem and sees a role for strictly controlled representatives. It is characterised by three pillars; referendums (initiated by governments or legislatures or by citizens responding to legislation), initiatives (initiated by citizens) and recall elections (on holders of public office).[8]

[edit] Representative

Representative democracy is so named because the people select representatives to a governing body. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular district (or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda. Representative democracy is susceptable to various problems such as Gerrymandering of constituencies.

[edit] Liberal

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy (with free and fair elections) along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. [9] [10] Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistent, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon III for example used plebiscites to ratify his imperial decisions.

[edit] History

Main article: History of democracy
Image:Claims of democracy.png
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. ██ Governments that claim to be democratic and allow the existence of opposition groups, at least in theory. ██ Governments that claim to be democratic but do not allow the existence of opposition groups. ██ Governments that do not claim to be democratic.

[edit] Ancient origins

The word democracy was coined in ancient Greece and used interchangeably with isonomia<ref name=HerodotusLots>Herodotus. 3.80</ref> (equality of political rights). 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,<ref>Aristotle Book 6</ref><ref name=HerodotusLots /> and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. In theory, all the 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 metics. 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. Key to the development of Athenian democracy was its huge juries allotted from the citizenry <ref>Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC</ref>. Most of the officers & magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected. <ref>Hansen (1999, 231–2).</ref><ref></ref>

The seeds of representative democracy were arguably sown in the Roman Republic.[11] Democratic principles and elements were also found in the Mahajanapadas of ancient India, and also in the local Sanghas, Ganas and Panchayats that existed throughout the centuries in India.[12] In the political climate of ancient India, many sovereign republics existed along with princely states. In the account of Alexander's campaigns in India, Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander, the Macedonian conqueror is said to have encountered "free and independent" Indian communities at every turn.[13] However, political rights were to some extent a representative of social class and in particular the caste system. In these republics, power was typically vested in the hands of an elite class, and so the system would perhaps be better classifed as an oligarchy. In the case of the village panchayats, the picture is somewhat more democratic. A panchayat in essence is a meeting of townspeople mediated by a group of village elders, and so it is an example of a direct democracy.

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 chose 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.[14][15]

[edit] Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, such as 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 Slavic countries, and Scandinavian Things.

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.[16]), 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.[17] The franchise was slowly increased and the Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became entirely a figurehead.[18]

[edit] 18th and 19th centuries

Although not described as a Democracy by the founding fathers, the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. [19] The United States Constitution protected rights and liberties and was adopted in 1788. Already in the colonial period before 1776 most adult white men could vote; there were still property requirements but most men owned their own farms and could pass the tests. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.<ref>Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (1974) 117-158. However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. </ref>By 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 Americans invented the grass roots party that could mobilise the voters, and had frequent elections and conventions to keep them active. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well.

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.[20]

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

Image:Freedom House world map 2005.png
This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006, which reports the state of world freedom in 2005. It is one of the most widely used measures of democracy by researchers.[1] ██ Free. Freedom House considers these to be liberal democracies.[2] ██ Partly Free ██ Not Free

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. In the 1920 democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought a disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Thus the rise of fascism and dictatorships in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in Poland, the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, these made the 1930s the "Age of Dictators" [21].

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratisation 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; 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.)

Image:Freedom House Country Rankings 1972-2005.png
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
Image:Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale.png
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

A subsequent wave of democratisation 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 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 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.

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.

[edit] Index of Democracy

The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. <ref>Laza Kekic. "A pause in democracy’s march" (From The World in 2007 print edition)</ref><ref>[ Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006] (PDF file)</ref>

Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101.Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea.

[edit] Marxist view

This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
Image:Circle-question-red.svg The factual accuracy of this section is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Many on the left view democracy as essentially a system giving ordinary people power and therefore they view Socialism, Marxism, etc. as inherently democratic because they believe they give power to the working classes. As a result many left-wing political groups in the 18th and 19th century referred to themselves as democrats or their party as "democratic" (Notable examples include the German Democratic Republic & the US Democrat Party)

Social-Democrats see liberal democracy as being compatible with the interests of working class and therefore participate in elections. According to their views once in power Socialists can improve popular welfare without needing to change the economic state.

The Marxist view is fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy believing that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marxism views liberal democracy as an unrealistic utopia. This is because they believe that in a capitalist state all "independent" media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists and one either needs large financial resources or to be supported by the bourgeoisie to win an election. Marx described parliamentary democracy as "deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament"<ref>Karl Marx. The civil war in France</ref> Thus the Marxists believe that in a capitalist state, the system focusses on resolving disputes within the ruling bourgeosie class and ignores the interests of the proletariat or labour class which are not represented and therefore dependent on the bourgeoisie's good will: "Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty” – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.” (Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5)

Moreover, even if representatives of the proletariat class are elected in a capitalist country they have limited power over the country's affairs as the economic sphere is largely controlled by private capital and therefore the representative's power to act is curtailed. Essentially, minarchists (a small minority of those supporting liberal democracy) claim that in the ideal liberal state the functions of the elected government should be reduced to the minimum (i.e. the court system and security).

[edit] Soviet democracy

This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
Image:Circle-question-red.svg The factual accuracy of this section is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

A soviet republic is a system of government in which the whole state power belongs to the Soviets - councils of employees. Although the term usually associated with communist states, it was not initially intended to represent only one political force, but merely a form of democracy and representation. Supporters claim that there were examples of Soviet Republics with multi-party system and even without a communist party. Theoretically, in classical Soviet Republic all power belongs to the hierarchy of Councils, with the Supreme Council on the top. It means that the Supreme Council has authority to alter the constitution, resolve trials, sentence people, change the government, confiscate property, reform language and appoint any official by simple majority. Decisions of the councils does not require to be ratified or undersigned by any other body or person. In practice the councils do not normally execute all these powers, but rather institute bodies to perform their work. Many other communist states were organized following soviet republican model even if they were not considered "soviet" officially. However, Communist states are widely seen as being de facto dictatorships by bougeious criticists, since the elections they held tended to be heavily rigged. [22]

Lenin insisted that the dictatorship of ploretariat is a highest possible form of democracy (for those considered the working class) should use violence against opposing classes:

  • Marx: “...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
  • Engels: “...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
  • Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....
  • Lenn: The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.
  • Lenin: A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, ‘and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”

People's democracy was claimed by some Marxists a form of democracy in (mostly developing) (contradicted by People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary, People's Republic of Bulgaria, and Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia) countries that is dominated by anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist movements.

[edit] Theory

[edit] Conceptions

Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.

  • 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 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 <ref>Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.</ref>. Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, and Richard Posner. This meaning of the word "democracy" has also been called polyarchy.
  • The aggregative conception of democracy holds that government should 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. Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy. <ref>Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0-06-041750-1.</ref>
  • 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 Jürgen Habermas.
  • The conceptions above assume a representative democracy. Direct democracy 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. It is also used to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions, procedures and patterns which are perceived as leading to equality in political power. 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. This view 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. It may also see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform.<ref>[23][24] Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref>

[edit] "Democracy" and "Republic"

In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[25] 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 head of government such as a Prime Minister.[26]

In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, while a representative democracy where representatives of the people are elected and whose power to govern is limited by laws enshrined in a constitution is referred to as a constitutional republic. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. Morever, the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual having legislative, judicial, and executive powers so that basic constitutional law is extremely difficult to change. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."<ref>Levinson, Sanford. Constitutional Faith. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 60</ref>Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy, or to representative democracy without checks on the power of elected officials, 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 and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. <ref>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.</ref> The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.

Republicanism and Liberalism have complex relationships to democracy and republic. See these articles for more details.

[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] Democratic state

Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy 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):

  1. A demos—a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. 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.
  2. A territory must be present, 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.
  3. A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

[edit] Criticism

Anarchists oppose "coercive" majority rule, it's a common saying that "democracy is a dictatorship of the majority." Many support a non-hierarchical and non-coercive system of direct democracy within free associations. 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. The minority can refuse to consent and are free to leave and form or join another association.<ref>Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution</ref> There are also some anarchists who expect society to operate by consensus.<ref> As in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed</ref>

Some far right, theocratic, and monarchist groups oppose democracy.

For criticisms of specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article.

[edit] Beyond the state level

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.
  • In business, corporations elect their boards by votes weighed by the number of shares held by each owner.
  • Trade unions sometimes choose their leadership through democratic elections. In the U.S. democratic elections were rare before Congress required them in the 1950s.<ref> Seymour Martin Lipset, Union Democracy (1962)</ref>.
  • Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes


[edit] References

  • Hansen, Morgens Herman. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. ISBN 1-85399-585-1.

[edit] Further reading

  • Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination (1992)
  • Becker, Peter, Juergen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
  • Benhabib, Seyla, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton University Press, 1996)
  • Charles Blattberg, From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford University Press, 2000, ch. 5. ISBN 0-19-829688-6
  • Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," European Journal of Political Theory (2005) v 4 #4 pp version
  • Copp, David, Jean Hampton, and John E. Roemer, eds. The Idea of Democracy Cambridge University Press (1993)
  • Dahl, Robert. Democracy and its Critics, Yale University Press (1989)
  • Dahl, Robert. On Democracy Yale University Press, 2000
  • Dahl, Robert. Ian Shapiro, and Jose Antonio Cheibub, eds, The Democracy Sourcebook MIT Press 2003
  • Diamond, Larry and Marc Plattner, The Global Resurgence of Democracy, 2nd edition Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996
  • Diamond, Larry and Richard Gunther, eds. Political Parties and Democracy (2001)
  • Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino, eds. Assessing the Quality of Democracy (2005)
  • Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner, and Philip J. Costopoulos, eds. World Religions and Democracy (2005)
  • Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner, and Daniel Brumberg, eds. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East (2003)
  • Elster, Jon (ed.). Deliberative Democracy Cambridge University Press (1997)
  • Gabardi, Wayne. "Contemporary Models of Democracy," Polity 33#4 (2001) pp 547+.
  • Held, David. Models of Democracy Stanford University Press, (1996), reviews the major interpretations
  • Inglehart, Ronald. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies Princeton University Press. 1997.
  • Khan, L. Ali, A Theory of Universal Democracy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers(2003)
  • Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries Yale University Press (1999)
  • Lipset, Seymour Martin. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”, American Political Science Review, (1959) 53 (1): 69-105. online at JSTOR
  • Macpherson, C. B. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press (1977)
  • Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
  • Plattner, Marc F. and Aleksander Smolar, eds. Globalization, Power, and Democracy (2000)
  • Plattner, Marc F. and João Carlos Espada, eds. The Democratic Invention (2000)
  • Putnam, Robert. Making Democracy Work Princeton University Press. (1993)
  • Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (1962)
  • Sen, Amartya K. “Democracy as a Universal Value”, Journal of Democracy (1999) 10 (3): 3-17.
  • Weingast, Barry. “The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law and Democracy”, American Political Science Review, (1997) 91 (2): 245-263. online at JSTOR
  • Whitehead, Laurence ed. Emerging Market Democracies: East Asia and Latin America (2002)
  • Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1993), examines democratic dimensions of republicanism

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Look up democracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


Alternatives and improvements - see also Wikocracy, E-democracy and Futarchy

Forms and Styles of Leadership: see also Form of government

Anarchy | Democracy | Geniocracy | Gerontocracy | Meritocracy | Matriarchy | Ochlocracy | Panarchism | Patriarchy | Plutocracy | Theocracy | Technocracy



[edit] Headline text

[[Link titleBold text]] ==

<span class="FA" id="ar" style="display:none;" /> <span class="FA" id="he" style="display:none;" />

af:Demokrasie ar:ديمقراطية bn:গণতন্ত্র bs:Demokracija bg:Демокрация ca:Democràcia cs:Demokracie cy:Democratiaeth da:Demokrati de:Demokratie et:Demokraatia el:Δημοκρατία es:Democracia eo:Demokratio eu:Demokrazia fa:دموکراسی fr:Démocratie ga:Daonlathas gd:Deamocrasaidh gl:Democracia ki:Ndemookirathĩ ko:민주주의 hi:लोकतंत्र hr:Demokracija id:Demokrasi is:Lýðræði it:Democrazia he:דמוקרטיה ka:დემოკრატია ht:Demokrasi ku:Demokrasî lv:Demokrātija lt:Demokratija ln:Demokrasi hu:Demokrácia mk:Демократија mr:लोकशाही nl:Democratie ja:民主主義 no:Demokrati nn:Folkestyre pl:Demokracja pt:Democracia ru:Демократия scn:Dimucrazzìa simple:Democracy sk:Demokracia sl:Demokracija sh:Demokracija fi:Demokratia sv:Demokrati tl:Demokrasya th:ประชาธิปไตย vi:Dân chủ tr:Demokrasi uk:Демократія ur:جمہوریت yi:דעמאקראטיע zh:民主


Personal tools
what is world wizzy?
  • World Wizzy is a static snapshot taken of Wikipedia in early 2007. It cannot be edited and is online for historic & educational purposes only.