Misplaced Pages

Democracy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:29, 12 December 2006 editAll Male Action (talk | contribs)575 edits the people don't have political power in democracy. elected officials do.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:30, 12 December 2006 edit undoUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits dubious material about one form of socialist democracy, Soviet democracy, are better discussed in the article with that nameNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 36: Line 36:


==== Socialist ==== ==== Socialist ====
{{TotallyDisputed-section}}
] is a broad movement and has several different views on democracy. ], ], ], and the ] are some examples. ] is a broad movement and has several different views on democracy. ], ], ], and the ] are some examples.

A ] is a ] in which the whole state power belongs to the ]s - councils of employees<ref>]</ref>. Although the term usually associated with ]s, 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 ] 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. Constitution of the USSR of 1977 states "The Supreme Soviet of the USSR is empowered to deal with all matters within the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(...)Laws of the USSR shall be enacted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or by a nationwide vote (referendum) held by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" 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. However, when Lenin was still in power, he issued a "temporary" ban on factions within the party. This ban remained until the fall of Communism and according to critics made the democratic procedures an empty formality.<ref>{{cite web | title= A Country Study: Soviet Union (Former). Chapter 7 - The Communist Party. Democratic Centralism | work=The Library of Congress. Country Studies | url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html| accessdate=October 24 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref>


==== Anarchist ==== ==== Anarchist ====
Line 126: Line 123:


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

===Democracy in Marxist theory===

The ] 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 ]. Marxism views liberal democracy as an unrealistic ]. 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></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, Marxists claim 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 (only 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). Hence Marxists-Leninists see a socialist revolution necessary to bring power into hands of opperrsed classes.

Lenin insisted that bougeous democracy in fact a dictatorship of bougeoisie<ref>V.I.Lenin. Full collection of works, 4th edition, vol. 25, p.385</ref>, while ] is a highest possible form of democracy (for those considered the working class) and 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”.

Communist states are widely seen as being ''de facto'' dictatorships by bougeious criticists, since the elections they held tended to be heavily rigged.

See also ] and ].

Supporters of liberal democracy point to the Marxists make these claims without any supporting evidence and instead point to many empirical studies:

*Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few ] causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, and that democracies have few ].<ref>{{cite journal | author=Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch | title=Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992 | journal=American Political Science Review | year=2001 | volume=95 | pages=33&ndash;48| url=http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm }} {{cite book | author=Ray, James Lee | title= From Progress in International Relations Theory, edited by Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman | publisher= MIT Press | year=2003 | id= }} </ref>

*Poor liberal democracies have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than poor dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of ] on health and education. Instead, the available resources are managed better.<ref> {{cite web | title=The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace | work=Carnegie Council | url=http://carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/9/prmID/5129}}</ref>

*Several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) has a stronger and more significant association with liberal democracy than they have with ] per capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.<ref> {{cite journal | author=Franco, Álvaro, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet and Maria Teresa Ruiz | title=Effect of democracy on health: ecological study (required) | journal=BMJ (British Medical Journal) | year=2004 | volume=329 | issue=7480 | pages=1421 &ndash;1423 | url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=535957 }}</ref>

*In the post-Communist nations, after an initial decline, those most democratic have achieved the greatest gains in life expectancy.<ref>{{cite journal | author=McKee, Marin and Ellen Nolte | title= Lessons from health during the transition from communism | journal=BMJ (British Medical Journal) | year=2004 | volume=329 | issue=7480 | pages=1428 &ndash;1429 | url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=535963 }}</ref>

*A prominent economist, ], has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale ].<ref>], (1999). . ''Journal of Democracy'', 10.3, 3-17. Johns Hopkins University Press.</ref> This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like ], which had its last great famine in ] and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the ] to the effects of ] {{fact}}. The government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years. Provincial government had been entirely so since the ].

*Refugee crises almost always occur in nondemocracies. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies.<ref>{{cite web | title=The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace | work=Carnegie Council | url=http://carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/9/prmID/5129}}</ref>

*Research shows that the more liberal democratic nations have much less ] or murder by government.<ref>''Power Kills''. ], 1997.</ref> Similarly, they have less ] and ].<ref> ''No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?'', Barbara Harff, 2003, .</ref>

*Liberal democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation.<ref>{{Cite paper | author=R Inglehart, HD Klingemann | title=Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness | publisher=World Values Survey | date=1999 }} R.J. Rummel, (2006). . Accessed ], ]. </ref>

*Research by the ] suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of ]: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.<ref>
Daniel Lederman, Normal Loaza, Rodrigo Res Soares, (November 2001). . ''World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708''. SSRN 632777. Accessed ], ].</ref> ] is important for ] and ]. The Indian ] "has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."<ref></ref>

*If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.<ref> {{cite web | title=The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace | work=Carnegie Council | url=http://carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/9/prmID/5129}}</ref>

*Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as nondemocracies to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.<ref> {{cite web | title=The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace | work=Carnegie Council | url=http://carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/9/prmID/5129}}</ref>

*Several studies have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.


=== Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers === === Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers ===

Revision as of 21:30, 12 December 2006

For other uses, see Democracy (disambiguation).
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government

List of forms of government

List of countries by system of government
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)

Oligarchy (rule by few)

Autocracy (rule by one)

Anarchy (rule by none)

Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)

(socio-economic ideologies)

  • Religious
  • Secular

(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism

Client state

Federalism

International relations

Related
icon Politics portal

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government by the will of the people. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy, 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.

Varieties

Part of the Politics series
Democracy
Types
Related topics
Region
icon Politics portal
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.

Aristotle

Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny/monarchy or today autocracy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system..

Sortition

Sortition/Allotment have formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population: For example, Aristotle described the law courts in Athens which were selected by lot as democratic and described elections as oligarchic.

Tribal democracy

Certain tribes organised themselves using forms of participatory democracy.

Consensus

Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.

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. 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. Some see, the extensive use of referenda, as in California, is akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with over 20 million potential voters. Other current examples include many small civic organizations (like college faculties) and town meetings in New England (usually in towns under 10,000 population). Direct democracy obviously becomes difficult when the electorate is large. Modern direct democracy tries to accommodate this 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).

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.

Liberal democracy

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. 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.

Socialist

Socialism is a broad movement and has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, Soviet democracy, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some examples.

Anarchist

Anarchists oppose "coercive" majority rule. 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. There are also some anarchists who expect society to operate by consensus.

History

Main article: History of democracy
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.
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.   Free. Freedom House considers these to be liberal democracies.   Partly Free   Not Free
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

Ancient origins

The word democracy was coined in ancient Greece and used interchangeably with isonomia (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, 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 . Most of the officers & magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.

The seeds of representative democracy were arguably sown in the Roman Republic. Democratic principles and elements have also been argued for the Mahajanapadas of ancient India, and also in the local Sanghas, Ganas and Panchayats that existed throughout the centuries in India. 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.

Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a minority of the population, such as the election of 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.), 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. The franchise was slowly increased and the Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became entirely a figurehead.

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. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. 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.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 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.

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.

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

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" .

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 mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)

A subsequent wave of 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.

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.

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 African Republic, 167. North Korea.

Theory

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 . 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.
  • 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.

"Democracy" and "Republic"

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."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. 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.

However, In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. 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. Therefore, today the term is used by states which are quite different from the earlier use of the term, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and the former German Democratic Republic.

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

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).

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.

Criticism

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

Some far right, theocratic, anarchism, and monarchist groups oppose all forms of democracy.

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..
  • Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

See also

Notes

  1. http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/other/democracy.html
  2. Aristotle, Politics 2.1273b
  3. Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b
  4. John M. Allswang. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998 (2000) (ISBN 0804738211)
  5. Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution
  6. As in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed
  7. ^ Herodotus. 3.80
  8. Aristotle Book 6
  9. Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC
  10. Hansen (1999, 231–2).
  11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml
  12. Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (1974) 117-158. However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia.
  13. Laza Kekic. "A pause in democracy’s march" (From The World in 2007 print edition)
  14. (PDF file)
  15. Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.
  16. Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0-06-041750-1.
  17. Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  18. Levinson, Sanford. Constitutional Faith. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 60
  19. 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.
  20. Seymour Martin Lipset, Union Democracy (1962)

References

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

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 453-65.online 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

External links

Critique

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

Template:Forms of leadership

Template:Link FA Template:Link FA

Categories: