Democracy is the name given to a number of forms of government and procedures which have

legitimacy because they have the consent of the people they govern. The two main criteria for a

democracy are, firstly that the officials exercising power have legitimate authority because they have been

elected, as opposed to inheriting that authority or holding it by force; and secondly, the mechanism for

changing the government is through peaceful and regular elections, as opposed to revolts, coups, or civil

war. Democracy is not a theory about what the aims or content of government or law should be, only that

those aims should be guided by the opinion of the majority, as opposed to a single ruler (as with an

absolute monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy). Just because a government has been democratically

elected does not mean it will be a good, just, or competent government. Thus, some polities have used

the democratic process to secure liberty while others have used it to promote equality, nationalism, or

other values.

Democracy is also a peaceful way for a group of any size to settle arguments or make decisions.

Everyone has a vote and is committed to respecting the decision that wins. This does not mean the

decision will be the best one, or even a good one. It is simply a mechanism for enabling everyone to be

involved in the decision making process, which gives the decisions binding legitimacy.

Most of the procedures used by modern democracies are very old. Almost all cultures have at some time

had their new leaders approved, or at least accepted, by the people; and have changed the laws only

after consultation with the assembly of the people or their leaders. Such institutions existed since before

written records, as well as being referred to in ancient texts, and modern democracies are often derived

or inspired by them.

Democracy in the modern world evolved in Britain and France and then spread to other nations. The main

reason for the development of democracy was a dissatisfaction with the corruption, incompetence, abuse

of power, and lack of accountability of the existing polity, which was often an absolute monarchy whose

legitimacy was based on the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Instead of defending their country, kings

were often engaging in ruinously expensive wars against other countries. Instead of using their power to

enforce the rule of law and justice, they were often using this power to oppress their subjects and stifle

opposition. People thought that if they could have a say in how they were governed, these abuses could

come to an end.

There is a tension in democracy between the rule of law limiting government and protecting individual

liberties, and the rule of the people being able to override individual liberties. In modern history this has

led to two competing versions of democracy. One emphasizes the purpose of the whole, but when it

became atheistic has tended to slip into totalitarianism and the suppression of individual liberty. The other

emphasizes individual liberty, but with the decline of its Christian underpinnings has tended to slide into

social disintegration.

1

There are many different types of democracy, from the minimalist direct democracy of Switzerland to the

totalitarian democracy of communist states such as North Korea, as well as mixed systems such as the

blending of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy in the United Kingdom. As democracy is now regarded

by many as the highest, or even only, form of legitimate authority, many states claim to be democratic

even if they do not appear to be. One of the most damaging accusations in today's international arena is

that a group or process is "undemocratic." In the Islamic world, there are democracies such

as Turkey, Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan, although there are also Muslims who believe democracy is un-

Islamic. Though the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are

also applicable to other groups and organizations.

In the past, philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas and Hobbes have considered

democracy to be among the worst forms of government because it could easily be corrupted and result in

injustice. The chief danger is that a majority can impose its will upon a minority in a way that violates their

liberties. Thus during the twentieth century, besides liberal democracies, there were also dictators such

as Hitler who came to power through the democratic process and totalitarian democracies like the Soviet

Union, where the populace gave strong support to the regime at various times.

To function properly, democracies require a high level of education and maturity among the people who

vote. If not, the process can be captured by demagogues if too many vote in a self-centered way, as

happened in Wiemar Germany. It can also be very claustrophobic or oppressive as majorities can use

their position to intimidate minority opinions. Modern democracy has benefited from the mass education

of citizens, the free press, and most especially the Protestant Reformation, which encouraged self-

restraint and public-mindedness and trained people in self-government.

History of democracy

Classical Greek democracy

The word "democracy" derives from the ancient Greek demokratia (δημοκρατία). It combines the

elements demos (which means "people") and kratos ("force, power"). Kratos is an unexpectedly brutish

word. In the words "monarchy" and "oligarchy," the second element, "arche," means rule, leading, or

being first. The Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens (comprising the central

city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica). Athens was one of the very first known

democracies and probably the most important in ancient times. Every adult male citizen was by right a

member of the Assembly and had a duty to participate and vote on legislation and executive bills. The

officials of the democracy were elected by lot, except generals (strategoi) and financial officials, who were

elected by the Assembly. Election was seen as less democratic and open to corruption because it would

favor the rich (who could buy votes) and the eloquent, whereas a lottery gave everyone an equal chance

to participate and experience, in Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn" (Politics 1317b28–30).

2

Participation was not open to all the inhabitants of Attica, but the in-group of participants was constituted

with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. Never

before had so many people spent so much of their time in governing themselves. However, they only had

the time to do this because of the huge number of slaves that underpinned the Athenian economy.

Political rights and citizenship were not granted to women, slaves, or metics (aliens). Of the 250-300,000

inhabitants, about one third were from citizen families and about 30,000 were citizens. Of those 30,000

perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly.

Athenian polity was an expression of its philosophy. One of the distinguishing features of ancient Greece

was its lack of a priestly class who would mediate between the people and the gods and also be channels

of the divine laws and will. Instead, the philosopher Aristotle summed the humanistic Greek view up in his

definition of human beings as "political or social animals," or as another philosopher put it, "man is the

measure of all things." Men could only live perfect and self-sufficient lives if they became active citizens,

knowing how to rule and be ruled by participating fully in the life of the state. Thus, for Athenians, making

laws and arguing about policy was their duty and right. This contrasts with a religiously based culture

where it is the gods who make or hand down the laws and human beings do not have the authority to

make or change these laws. So individual citizens of Athens had the right to take the initiative: to stand to

speak in the assembly, to initiate a public law suit (that is, one held to affect the political community as a

whole), to propose a law before the lawmakers, or to approach the council with suggestions.

There were many critics of Athenian democracy and twice it suffered coups. For example in 406 B.C.E., the

Athenians won a naval victory over the Spartans. After the battle, a storm arose and the eight generals in

command failed to collect survivors: The Athenians sentenced all of them to death. Technically, it was

illegal, as the generals were tried and sentenced together, rather than one by one as Athenian law

required. Socrates happened to be the citizen presiding over the assembly that day. He refused to

cooperate, objecting to the idea that the people should be able to ignore the laws and do whatever they

wanted just because they were in the majority.

This tension in democracy between the rule of law, limiting government and protecting individual liberties,

and the rule of the people, being able to override individual liberties, resurfaced in modern history with two

competing versions of democracy.

Middle Ages

Most parts of Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords during the Middle Ages. However, the growth of

centers of commerce and city-states led to great experimentation in non-feudal forms of government.

Many cities elected mayors or burghers. There were various systems involving elections or assemblies,

although often only involving a minority of the population. Such city states, particularly on the Italian

3

peninsula, often allowed greater freedom for science and the arts, and theRenaissance blossomed in this

environment, helping to create conditions for the re-emergence of democracy.

One of the most significant influences on the development of democracy was Protestantism. The

hierarchical Roman Catholic Church supported absolute monarchy and was a powerful opponent of

democracy and liberalism. The fragmentation and restructuring of Christianity that accompanied the

Reformation enabled groups of Christians in some countries to experiment and set up their own

congregations based on different ecclesiologies, such as Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. These

arguments and discussions over church polity spilled over into politics and influenced the development of

democracy.

Instances of democracy that have been cited include 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, Scandinavian Things, and the

autonomous merchant city of Sakai in sixteenth century Japan. However, few of these have an unbroken

history into the modern period—an exception being the Althing, which lays claim to being the oldest

parliament in the world. Furthermore participation in many of these post-feudal governments was often

restricted to the aristocracy.

Liberal democracyThe development of democracy in England

The origin of the modern liberal democracy that has expanded so rapidly in the past century lies in the

evolution of English political institutions. The government of the English in the tenth century, before the

Norman conquest and the imposition of feudalism, was derived from the customs of the Germanic tribes

who invaded and settled in England during the fifth century. The English were a nation of freeholders

living in homesteads. A group of these homesteads formed a village which had an assembly, the village-

moot presided over by the village-reeve. A hundred or so of such villages constituted a Hundred, which

also had a meeting presided over by an elder where they managed their own affairs. A number of

hundreds formed a shire, presided over by an earldorman appointed by the King and Witan. The kingdom

made up of these shires was ruled by the Witenagemot and the King. The Witenagemot was the "Meeting

of the Wise Men," who could elect and depose the King, decide questions of war and peace, make and

amend the laws, confirm the appointment of bishops and earldormen and settle disputes. The King was

greatly respected but could not alter the law, levy a tax, or make a grant of land without the consent of the

Witenagemot.

The English system of government worked from the bottom upwards, from the freeman to the King, every

person holding his own land as his right, choosing his own earldorman who in turn helped to choose the

King. The law was customary law, which formed the basis of Common Law, a body of general rules

4

prescribing social conduct. It was characterized by trial by jury and by the doctrine of the supremacy of

law. The law was not made, but discovered as revealed in the traditional life and practices of the

community. It was thought of as God's law which had been handed down through custom from generation

to generation. Thus no one had the authority to unilaterally go against the wisdom of the past generations

and make new law.

In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England and imposed the feudal system, which worked from the

top down. The King owned all the land and gave it to his knights, earls, and barons. In this way he

gathered up, and concentrated in himself, the whole power of the state. Subsequent English history has

been a long struggle to reassert the Anglo-saxon principles of government against this imposed

feudalism.

English parliament in front of the king c. 1300

Some landmarks in this not always progressive struggle were:

The attempt to bring the Church under the law of the land so that priests who committed murder

could be punished with theConstitutions of Clarendon (1164);

The confirmation of trial by jury (1166);

Magna Carta , issued by King John under pressure from the barons led by the Archbishop of

Canterbury, which restated the ancient principle that no person should be imprisoned but by the

judgment of his equals and by the law of the land (1215);

The Provisions of Oxford which demanded that there should be three Parliaments a year and that

the King could not act without the authority of his appointed advisers (1258);

The first House of Commons summoned by Simon de Montefort with representatives from all

classes of the kingdom (1265);

5

The First Complete Parliament (1297) summoned by Edward I on the principle that, "it was right

that what concerned all, should be approved by all," which passed the statute that there was to be no

taxation without the consent of the realm;

The right of the Commons to impeach any servant of the Crown who had done wrong (1376) and

the necessity that the two Houses of Parliament should concur for the law to be changed;

The abolition of the authority of the Pope in England (1534);

The growth of non-conformity that accompanied the Reformation popularized the idea that a

congregation should be able to elect its own minister—these expressions of democracy in the

churches spread to the political realm;

The declaration by the Commons that their privileges were not the gift of the Crown, but the

natural birthright of Englishmen, that they could discuss matters of public interest and that they had

the right to liberty of speech (1621);

The Petition of Right (1628) which demanded that no man could be taxed without consent of

Parliament;

The National Covenant (1637) signed in Scotland to resist the imposition of Popery and

Episcopacy;

The abolition of the Star Chamber (1640) which dispensed arbitrary justice;

The English Civil War, which arose because of the arbitrary government of Charles I, who tried to

rule without Parliament, and the extraordinary amount of religious freedom and outpouring of

spirituality at this time;

The Habeas Corpus Act (1679) restated the ancient principle that indefinite and illegal

imprisonment was unlawful;

The Glorious Revolution in which William of Orange was invited to defend the rights and liberties

of the people of England from James II, who wanted to rule absolutely and impose Catholicism on the

country;

The Toleration Act (1689) allowing freedom of worship to all Protestants;

The Declaration of Right (1689) that declared illegal the pretended power to suspend or dispense

the law;

6

The expansion of the franchise in England in the mid-nineteenth century through the Reform Acts

(1832, 1867);

Ballot Act (1872), which introduced secret ballots;

Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act (1883), which set limits on campaign spending;

Representation of the People Act (1918), which gave the vote to all men and women over the age

of 30.

Universal suffrage and political equality of men and women (1928).

However, with the expansion of the franchise came the expansion of government, as politicians made

promises to the electorate so as to win votes and be elected. These policies could only be delivered

through greatly increased public expenditure financed through increases in taxation. This has led to a

gradual but significant loss of freedom as governments have used their democratic mandate to engage in

social engineering, retrospective legislation, and the confiscation of property in a manner reminiscent of

the Greek abuses that Socrates railed against. It is now commonly thought that the will of a

democratically elected government should not be constrained, because this would be undemocratic,

whereas the whole raison d'etre of democracy was to preserve and not to justify the destruction of liberty.[1]

Democracy in the United States

A significant further development of democracy occurred with the establishment of the United States. The

political principles of liberal democracy that were worked out over the centuries in England and articulated

by the philosophers Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu were inherited by the United States and embodied in

its Constitution. Having a constitution that described functions and limited the political institutions was a

novel innovation. The founding fathers who framed the Constitution wanted to establish institutions that

could preserve liberty and prevent the excessive growth of government, which was seen as the chief

threat to liberty. So the United States Constitution set down the framework for government with checks

and balances based on the separation of powers, so that no institution or person would have absolute

power. To further limit the reach of government and protect people's liberties, the founding fathers

produced a Bill of Rights, a series of amendments to the Constitution. It was adopted in 1788, and

provided for an elected government through representatives, and it protected the civil rights and liberties

of all except slaves. This exception came to haunt the new republic. Although not described as a

"democracy" by its founding fathers, today it is the model many people aspire too.

The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond.

Following the American Civil War, in 1868, newly freed slaves, in the case of men, were granted the right

7

to vote under the passage of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Women's

suffrage was finally achieved in the 1920s with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution states that the power comes from the people: "We the people…." However, unlike a

pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens in the U.S. are only governed by the majority of the

people within the limits prescribed by the rule of law.[2] 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. Thomas Jefferson stated that majority

rights cannot exist if individual rights do not.[3] The power of the majority of the people is checked by

limiting that power to electing representatives, who then govern within limits of overarching constitutional

law, rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right. [4]Moreover,

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."[5]

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 previous forms of government. But they were

mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered

federal structure. Inalienable rights refers to a set of human rights that are not awarded by human power,

and, thus, cannot be surrendered.[6]

The values of Anglo-American democracy

The main theme running through this political evolution is that the impetus for greater democracy was the

desire to establish the rule of law so as to preserve and expand freedom—the freedom of religion and

speech, freedom of association, movement and trade, and secure ownership of property. Hence, the

name "liberal" democracy. To guarantee this, the importance of a separation of powers, or functions,

came to be recognized with a separate executive, legislative, and judiciary. It was thought that a

democratically accountable legislature and independent judiciary was the best way to prevent a king or

imperious chief executive from misusing his position and acting arbitrarily.

The underlying values and culture that underpin Anglo-American democracy are, first, the value of the

individual. Great Britain, and its offspring America, developed an exaggerated sense of the value of the

individual as compared to other countries, which can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period. [7] This

individualism was grounded in the nuclear family structure, which valued liberty above other values such

as equality and authority.[8] This was reinforced by English religion, which was a

notoriouslyPelagian version of Christianity that also emphasized freedom and

responsibility. Protestantism, especially its evangelical version with its emphasis on individual salvation

and the love that God has for each individual soul, reinforced this respect for the individual, and his or her

8

rights and responsibilities. Subsequent major and minor British political philosophers such

as Locke, Hume, J.S. Mill, and Toland, have all supported individual liberty against the state and the

majority.

A second value in Anglo-American democracy is respect for tradition and custom as the source of the

authority for morality and the law.[9] Medieval English philosophy had a tendency towards nominalism,

which made it hard to imagine, and thus believe, in the existence of abstract constructs such as the state.

And modern British and American philosophy has been strongly empirical, valuing experience over

abstract reason. As David Hume said, "the rules of morality are not conclusions of our reason."

Experience reveals that the world people is very complex, full of idiosyncrasies, and that social institutions

are the product of human actions but not conscious human design.

Thirdly, Anglo-American individualism traditionally had a strong Christian component, such that people

naturally tended to be public minded. Many voluntary societies and charities were formed and freely given

public service was common. The French observer Alexis de Tocqueville in his famous work, Democracy

in America (1835), is famously to have said that he found the strength of America in her churches and

voluntary societies, which gave individuals the organizational strength to exercise their liberties according

to their various opinions.

Democracy in France and its totalitarian offshoots

Democracy, when it developed on the continent of Europe, took a very different turn. In the Middle

Ages most European countries had modernized by adoptingJustinian's legal code, which gave the

authority for creating law to the ruler. Throughout the Middle Ages, continental monarchies had been very

powerful, with the unchecked authority to lead their countries into ruinous and destructive wars. They had

this power because large armies were necessary for defense, as there are few natural barriers on the

continent and most countries had several neighbors with whom there would be disputes over territory. So

loyalty and service of the whole has always tended to be more important than individual freedom. So in

the modern era, the most progressive monarchs were enlightened despots. They were often followed by

dictators. The idea that the state should have this authority was not challenged.

The development of democracy in France

In theory, France was an absolute monarchy in which the king was the source of all laws and

administrative authority. In practice, the monarch was hedged in by a medieval constitution which he

could not change without the risk of undermining the entire structure. The French state in the 1780s, was

on the brink of bankruptcy due to an ancient, inequitable, and inadequate tax base, as well as over

spending on wars with Britain. There were many other economic and social problems the monarchy was

unable to solve. This led to a widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for change. To

break the deadlock, King Louis XVI called the Estates General, whose status and authority was very

9

unclear, to meet for the first time since 1614. The forces that were unleashed soon resulted in the

collapse of royal authority and social order. The Estates General turned itself into a National Assembly in

1789 and abrogated to itself the national sovereignty and gave itself the right to create a new constitution.

The Assembly swept aside the past, publishing the Constitution of 1791 which revolutionized the whole

social and political structure of France.[10] Feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism were

abolished and society was rationally reorganized on an individualist and secular basis. Many of these

changes, such as legal equality and the abolition of feudal dues were welcomed by the general

population. However, by claiming the authority to remake society, disregarding all previous laws and

institutions, the door was opened for one person or group after another to impose their vision or ideals on

the country in an almost permanent revolution.

The Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen was published guaranteeing legal equality; the

separation of Church and State and religious toleration came in 1791. Many of these changes were

welcomed with few regretting the end of theocratic monarchy. Many of those who did fled the country. In

the winter of 1791, the Assembly considered legislation against such émigrés. They debated and voted

for the safety of the State against the liberty of individuals to leave. In 1792, another assembly called the

Convention drew up a republican constitution, the Constitution of the Year I, and voted to execute the

king. People opposed to the revolution were arrested and executed in the Terror that followed. The

revolution became increasingly radical and atheistic and there was a campaign of dechristianization in

1794. An altar to the Cult of Reason replaced the Christian one in Notre Dame and many priests were

martyred. In 1795, the Convention approved the new Constitution of the Year III which was later ratified in

a plebiscite. The new constitution created the Directoire (Directorate) and the first bicameral legislature in

French history. This should have been followed by elections, but the members of the Convention wanted

to hang on to their positions because they thought they knew better than anyone else what was best for

the country and so disregarded the constitution. The impasse was broken in 1799, when Napoleon

Bonaparte staged the coup which installed the Consulate. This effectively led to his dictatorship and

eventually (in 1804), to his proclamation as Emperor, which brought to a close the First Republic. There

followed 150 years of instability—periods of republic, monarchy, and empire—culminating in the

establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958.

The values of Gallic democracy

The rationalism of the French Enlightenment provided the foundational values of the French

Revolution and the type of democracies that developed from it. Idealistic thinkers assumed that a model

society could be designed on rational principles and then implemented. Reason, like geometry, has a

tendency to assert that there is one right answer. The Enlightenment was also deeply anti-clerical; it was

led by Voltaire (1694–1778), who spent much of his time ridiculing religion and things that were old.

10

Eventually it turned atheistic, as the French religious establishment was unable to intellectually refute the

more extreme deist ideas that had been imported from England.

The leading political philosopher in France was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). His conception of

the ideal polity was very illiberal. He thought that in an idealized state of nature, people were born pure

but had been corrupted and enslaved by civilization and institutions such as private property. To change

this, he advocated a new corrective social contract as a blueprint through which a proper society could be

built. To begin this, everyone in the society would subscribe to a new social contract. In order to be free,

every individual had to surrender his rights to a collective body and obey the general will. The state is

vested with total power, which is legitimate because it has the consent of the majority. The general will, by

definition, is always right and reflects the real interests of every member of society. So anyone who

disagrees with the general will is mistaken and acting contrary to his own best interests. It is the ruler's

responsibility to correct him and force him to act for his own benefit. What is supremely important is the

whole, of which an individual is merely an expendable a part.[11]

Rousseau didn't agree with the idea of private property. He thought it was the source of social ills, tending

to corrupt people and destroy their character. He regarded the man without property (the noble savage,

for example) to be the freest. Instead, he thought that nearly all property should be owned by the state.

Rousseau also recognized the importance of education and maintained that the state should control it, so

as to be able to indoctrinate children into the values of the state. Although Rousseau was not a supporter

of democracy—he preferred aristocracy—his ideas affected the course of the French revolution and

subsequent democracy.

One impetus behind French democracy was the desire to seize the power of the state and use it to

remodel society on a rationalistic basis. The vision was of a country organized and united to achieve a

common purpose. As long as the government was based on popular sovereignty it had the power and

authority to make any laws. This innovation was very attractive to others who wished to change and

modernize society, and became a basic value of democracies throughout Europe. Being rationalistic, the

supporters of the French Revolution thought its principles were universal and could, even should, be

adopted by others. However, such democracies tended to become totalitarian.[12]

One of the key values of French democracy which is also shared by socialism and communism is

equality. Not equality before the law so much as people having equal lifestyles—having the same amount

of living space and the same income. But such equality, which has been called the Procrustean equality,

is incompatible with freedom. If people are free, they can make choices which have different outcomes,

which leads quickly to inequality. For example, even if people earn the same amount of money they may

prioritize and spend it differently—one person on food and luxuries, another on travel, another on a larger

home, another on children's education, another on drink and drugs; another invests it and engages in

11

commerce, and another saves it and passes it to his or her children. So the only way to achieve equality

is to take away people's freedom to make such choices.

The principles of French democracy were eagerly embraced by other idealistic revolutionaries throughout

Europe. The historian François Furet in his work, The Passing of an Illusion[13] explores in detail the

similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917, more than a century

later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. This model was attractive

to Marxists, as it justified a small group who thought they knew what was best for the people; a group

claiming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat," seizing power in the name of the people, and using that

power to compel the people to fit into the new ideal economic and social order. People who resisted or

disagreed were to be sent to re-education camps or executed. This was not uncommon in the communist

democracies established by the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and elsewhere. These

countries are one-party states based on the principles of democratic centralism. They have a centrally

planned command economy and a powerful secret police to seek out and punish dissenters.

Global spread of democracy in the twentieth century

Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map displays the official self identification made by

world governments with regard to democracy, as of June 2006. It shows the de jure status of democracy in the

world.██ Governments self identified as democratic██ Governments not self identified as democratic.

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2007, which reports the state of world

freedom in 2006. It is one of the most widely used measures of democracy by researchers. Note that although these

measures (another is the Polity data described below) are highly correlated, this does not imply interchangeability.[14]██ Free.Freedom House considers these to be liberal democracies.[15]██ Partly Free██ Not Free

12

This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the

period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005

Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

The Economist's Democracy Index offers another measure of democracy. The palest blue countries get a score above 9,

while the black countries score below 2.

The rise of democracies in the twentieth century has come in successive "waves of democracy," variously

resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. Early in the century,

several countries that were part of the British Empire gradually gained their independence: Australia, New

Zealand, andCanada all became stable, liberal democracies modeled on the British parliamentary

system. South Africabecame a democracy, but with a franchise limited to white people. After World War

I the Allies, under pressure from Woodrow Wilson, decided with the Treaty of Versailles to break up

the Austro-Hungarian Empire into new nation states. Some, like Austria, established a democratic

13

system, while in others, such as Hungary, strong men came to power either to establish national unity or

to defend the country from predatory larger neighbors. Without either mature national identities or

democratic traditions to draw upon, they were all very unstable, mostly degenerating into nationalism.

The Ottoman Empire, too, was partitioned and different countries created and administered under League

of Nations mandates awarded to France, Britain, and Italy. The countries contained a mixture of ethnic,

national, and religious groups without a common identity, which made government very difficult. The

British, who administered Iraq, imposed a parliamentary constitution on the country along with a monarch.

However, the democratic roots were not very deep and there was a coup in 1958. In Russia, the absolute

monarchy of Tsarism was overthrown in the February Revolution of 1917. Although they did not have

widespread support, the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, seized power in a coup the following October.

They claimed to represent the "vanguard of the proleteriat" and the real interests of the people who,

because of "false consciousness" hadn't voted "correctly" in elections for the democratically elected All

Russian Constituent Assembly.

The Great Depression also brought disenchantment and instability, and in several European countries,

dictators and fascist parties came to power. They did so either by coups or by manipulating the

democratic system claiming to be able to solve problems which liberalism and democracy could not.

Dictatorships were established in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Baltic Republics, the

Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet

Union, this period has been called the "Age of Dictators."[16] Even in the United States Franklin D.

Roosevelt wielded much more power than previous presidents which coincided with a huge expansion of

government.

The aftermath of World War II brought a definite reversal of this trend in Western Europe and Japan. With

the support of the U.S. and UK, liberal democracies were established in all the liberated countries of

western Europe and the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany were democratized

too. However in most of Eastern Europe, socialist democracies were imposed by the Soviet Union where

only communist and communist associated parties were allowed to participate in elections. Membership

of these parties was restricted, which disenfranchised most of the population. The communist party

maintained itself in power by claiming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat," using intimidation and force

against "counter-revolutionaries." The Soviet sector of Germany became the German Democratic

Republic and was forced into the Soviet bloc.

The war was also followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had

democratic constitutions often based on the British parliamentary model. However, once elected, many

rulers held their power for decades by intimidating and imprisoning opponents. Elections, when they were

held, were often rigged so that the ruling party and president were re-elected. Following World War II,

most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a

14

general consensus among their electorates and political parties that the wealthy could be taxed to help

support the poor.

In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries as

industries were developed to provide goods for citizens. However, it later declined in the state-controlled,

command economies, where incentives for hard work and the freedom to innovate were lost. By 1960, the

vast majority ofnation-states called themselves democracies, although the majority of the world's

population lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge.

A subsequent wave of democratization saw new liberal democracies in several nations such as Spain and

Portugal. Some of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and

early 1980s as dictators were unable to pay the national debts accumulated during their rule due to theft

and the misuse of loans. This was followed by nations in East Asia and South Asia by the mid-to-late

1980s, that were becoming industrial producers.

In 1989, the Soviet Union, in effect, collapsed economically, ending the Cold War and discrediting

government-run economies. The former Eastern bloc countries had some memory of liberal democracy

and could reorganize more easily than Russia, which had been communist since 1917. The most

successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe,

and they quickly became members or candidate members of the European Union. Russia, however, had

its reforms impeded by a mafia and oligarchs that crippled new businesses, and the old party leaders took

personal ownership of Russia's outdated industries.

The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa,

whereapartheid was dismantled by the efforts of Nelson Mandela and F. W. DeKlerk. More 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 Republic of India is currently the largest liberal democracy in the world.[17]

Forms of democracy

Forms of governmentPart of the Politics series

List of forms of government

Anarchism

Aristocracy

15

Authoritarianism

Autocracy

Communist state

Democracy

Direct democracy

Representative democracy

Despotism

Dictatorship

Fascism

Feudalism

Hierocracy

Kleptocracy

Kritarchy

Krytocracy

Meritocracy

Monarchy

Absolute monarchy

Constitutional monarchy

Ochlocracy

Oligarchy

Plutocracy

Republic

Mixed government

Constitutional republic

16

Parliamentary republic

Socialist republic

Capitalist republic

Single-party state

Thalassocracy

Theocracy

Timocracy

Totalitarianism

Tyranny

Politics Portal

There are many variations on the forms of government that put ultimate rule in the citizens of a state:

Representative democracy

Representative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election.

Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom

to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and

choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.

There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may

be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many

proportional systems.

Liberal democracy

Classical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy 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.

Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are

liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal

democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws.

Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form

of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a

17

high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws

often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people

see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized,

with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language

speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking

majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.

Socialist democracy

Socialism, where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on

democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some

examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social

democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a

representative democracy.

Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic

centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired

government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists

often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative

democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in

rural communist China.

Anarchist democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which

historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-

Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is

recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] However,

anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and

says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.

Sortition

Sortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A

much noted classical example would be the ancient Atheniandemocracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of

qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process

would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the

problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.

Tribal and consensus democracy

18

Certain ethnic tribes organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus

democracy.[20] However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop

consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative

democracy seek consensus among the people.[21]

Theory

Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas

Plato criticized democracy for a number of reasons. He thought the people were often muddle-headed

and were not suited to choose the best leaders. Worse, democracy tends to favor bad leaders who gain

and maintain power by pandering to the people instead of telling them unpleasant truths or advocating

necessary but uncomfortable policies. Furthermore, in a democracy, people are allowed to do what they

like, which leads to diversity and later social disintegration. It leads to class conflict between the rich and

poor as the latter try to tax the former and redistribute their wealth. Morally, Plato said, democracy leads

to permissiveness. The end result, he argued, would be the rise of a tyrant to reimpose order. [22] When

one examines the way that many democracies in the modern world have turned out, one has to recognize

some merit in his arguments.

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 thought that there was a good and

a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity). [23] He

thought monarchy best for a very large state and democracy only feasible for a small community where

people knew each other.

Aquinas too taught that "the kingdom or monarch is the best form of government as long as it is not

corrupt." The next best form of government was aristocracy, understood as the government by the best,

and finally democracy, the government by the people. However, the best form of all, according to

Aquinas, is a blend of the three, taking into consideration the needs and the circumstances of each

society. A blend gives one the best of monarchy—a single person as a focal point for the loyalty of the

whole people, who can act as a final arbiter in disputes and who links the past, present, and future. But a

monarch can do little alone. An aristocracy made up of the finest people in the land, who come from a

lineage and tradition of public service, would take many of the responsible positions of governance. Not

having to stand for election would mean they wouldn't have to pander to the electorate and instead could

make the better decisions. A democratic element means that the wishes and opinions of the ordinary

people cannot be overlooked in the direction of government and the formation and implementation of

policy.

Montesquieu and the separation of powers

19

Separation of powers, a term coined by French political Enlightenment thinker Baron de

Montesquieu (1685-1755), is a model for the governance of democratic states, which he expounded in De

l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws), a work published anonymously in 1748. Under this model,

the state is divided into branches, and each branch of the state has separate and independent powers

and areas of responsibility. The branches are normally divided into the Executive, the Legislative, and the

Judicial. He based this model on the British constitutional system, in which he perceived a separation of

powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law. Subsequent writers have noted that this

was misleading, since Great Britain had a very closely connected legislature and executive, with further

links to the judiciary (though combined with judicial independence). No democratic system exists with an

absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. Nonetheless, some systems

are clearly founded on the principle of separation of powers, while others are clearly based on a mingling

of powers.

Montesquieu was highly regarded in the British colonies in America as a champion of British liberty

(though not of American independence). Political scientist Donald Lutz found that Montesquieu was the

most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America.[24] Following the American secession, Montesquieu's work remained a powerful influence on many of

the American Founders, most notably James Madison of Virginia, the "Father of the Constitution."

Montesquieu's philosophy that "government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another"

reminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national government

required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers.

Proponents of separation of powers believe that it protects democracy and forestalls tyranny; opponents

of separation of powers, such as Professor Charles M. Hardin,[25] have pointed out that, regardless of

whether it accomplishes this end, it also slows down the process of governing, promotes executive

dictatorship and unaccountability, and tends to marginalize the legislature.

Elements of liberal democracy

Certain elements are considered to be essential hallmarks of liberal democracy:

Free, regular elections with a secret ballot. People can stand for election either as independent

candidates or as members of a political party. Voters can cast their votes freely and secretly without

fear of intimidation.

A separation of powers or functions which is set out in a constitution so that there are checks and

balances and no one person, group, or institution can attain or exercise unlimited power. The job of

the legislature is to codify laws, passing new ones if necessary. Within this framework, the executive

implements the policies that have been elected. The judiciary upholds the laws.

20

An independent judiciary which interprets the law without fear or favor.

A free and independent media able to report, discuss, and comment on events, public persons,

and expose corruption and the abuse of power without fear.

The rule of law which protects people's liberties.

Freedom of association, to form political, religious, civic, and charitable groups free from

government control.

Freedom of religion, and an ecumenical civic consensus that values all legitimate forms of religion

as promoting values supportive of the public welfare.

Freedom of speech—the right to hold and espouse any opinion without violating the laws of libel

or inciting a breach of the peace.

Private property is very important, so that a person can be independent of the state.

Education and literacy, which encourages people to think for themselves.

Beyond the public level

This article has discussed democracy as it relates to systems of government. This generally involves

nations and subnational levels of government, although theEuropean Parliament, whose members are

democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a

supranational democratic institution. On the other hand there are many who criticize the democratic deficit

within the European Union. There is no European demos and parties in the Parliament are all national

ones. The only body with the right to propose legislation is the European Commission whose members

are appointed by governments and not elected.

Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation

have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.

Many non-governmental organizations 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 in unions were rare before Congress required them in the 1950s.[26]

21

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

The future of democracy

The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without

interruption for several decades. 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 formed the core of Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" theory. However

the resurgence of Islam with a vision of a restored caliphate, the rise of China as an economic

superpower while remaining a one-party state, and the contraction of nascent democracy in Russia have

dented that prediction.

Not everyone regards democracy as the only form of legitimate government. In some

societies monarchy, aristocracy, one-party rule, or theocracy are still regarded as having greater

legitimacy. Each of them is capable of producing good government. Whether they change into

democracies depends on a country's political culture and traditions, which themselves are a product of

its family structure, religion, geography, demography, and historical experience. As these change and

evolve so too will a country's polity.

Problems with democracy

In the twenty-first century a number of problems with democracy have emerged.

The eclipse of limited government. The aim of constitutional democracy was to limit government. The

separation of powers was developed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power, along with the rule of law,

due process, and the distinction between public and private law. However, with the appearance of a

universal franchise, it has seemed unnecessary to limit government. It is commonly asserted that if a

government is elected by the majority of the people, it should have the right to pass any measure and

enact any policy. Limiting the power of a legitimately elected government has come to appear

undemocratic, thwarting of the will of the people, which is one of the problems originally identified by

Socrates.

The rising influence of special interest groups. Modern elected governments often do not serve the

agreed opinion of the majority, but instead serve numerous special interest groups who lobby for special

treatment from the government. Such a relatively small group greatly benefits from legislation passed in

its favor, whereas the impact on the rest of the population is so small that it may not seem worthwhile to

oppose it (or, the general population may simply be unaware of detrimental provisions in bills offered by

special interest groups). Thus there is an increasing prevalence of bargaining democracy as opposed

to representative democracy. Coalitions are formed of a multitude of special interests, each of which

consents to the special benefits granted to other groups only at the price of their own special interests

22

being equally considered. Group selfishness is thus a greater threat to democracy than individual

selfishness. In many respects, Western democracy has come to be manipulated by lobbyists, or group

interests, while the wishes of the majority are ignored. Worse, policies the majority would actively

disapprove of, which further the interests only of elite minorities, are the ones enacted.

Government above the law. Although constitutionalists sought to limit government by the separation of

powers, they did not separate the functions sufficiently. Thus, legislatures pass not only laws but are

concerned with the business of government. They often pass legislation only suited to achieve the

purposes of the moment. In a sense, they change the rules of the game so as to never lose. Thus there is

no longer government under the law, since the government makes the law, often excluding itself and its

representatives from that law. Placing the power of legislation proper and of governmental measures in

the same hands has effectively brought a return to unlimited government. In this sense, the danger is that

government exists for the maintenance of the ruling elite, regardless of party and country. Moreover, as

with the U.S. Supreme Court, there is the problem of the judiciary evolving into a de facto legislative

organ beyond which there is no appeal, by overturning laws approved by the legislative and executive

branches.

Excessive partisanship and the politics of envy. In the past, when the political culture was still

essentially Christian-based, politicians tended to behave in a relatively responsible way. With the decline

of the Christian political culture and the rise of the politics of envy, the system is open to great abuse.

Politicians promise to deal with social and economic problems, unaware that government cannot solve

them and indeed is often the cause. They are tempted to bribe the electorate, pandering to their baser

instincts, and sometimes to misplaced idealism, in order to be elected to solve such problems. The

disconnect between campaign promises and actual policies enacted once elected is often wide.

Possible solutions

It can rightly be asked if democracy is the true end goal of human civilization, or if people must settle

for Winston Churchill's characterization that, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all

those others that have been tried." The dilemma is essentially a spiritual or cultural one that expresses

itself in the problems identified above. So often proposed solutions have been confused and superficial

and even tended to make matters worse. This is because of the lack of depth of modern political

philosophy compared to that of the giants of the past.

It is necessary for the original political culture that gave rise to liberal democracy to be revived, updated,

and articulated in a language that addresses people in the twenty-first century in a way that Locke,

Montesquieu, and Mill did for their own centuries. This should explain that the purpose and value of

freedom under the law is to enable people to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness and, thus, live

meaningful and moral lives. It should inspire people to live according to their conscience, living unselfishly

23

to benefit others so that the purpose for the whole can be achieved in a natural and voluntary way. When

people live in this way, disagreements can be peacefully solved through the democratic process because

people know each other to be good hearted. In this way, people will be able to live in peace with each

other.[27]

Also, the rules for the organization of government should be updated to better protect freedom. Many

lessons should have been learned from the past two hundred years of democracy. Many problems have

arisen that political philosophers of the past cannot be expected to have forseen. There needs to be a

clearer delineation of functions of the different organs of government so as to establish and protect the

institutions necessary for freedom and peace.[28]

Democracy

Democracy is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law. The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία– (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', [3] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient

24

times.[4] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to the legislative process. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[5][6]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in it's own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. [9][10]

[11] Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, andDeliberative Democracy are pseudo-democracies because they do not allow direct citizen participation in the legislative process.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. So it is possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[12] and procedurally.[13] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, andfreedom of the press are considered by some to be essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[14][15]

Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating principle for establishing a democracy.[16] In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such aspolitical pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances;due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practicejudicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups also.

Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece,[17][18] but democratic practices are evident in earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India. [19] Other cultures

25

since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[17] Europe,[17] and North and South America.[20] The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American andFrench Revolutions.[21] Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[22] The right to vote has been expanded in many Jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.

[edit]History of democracy

Main article: History of democracy

[edit]Ancient origins

The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Platocontrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners).[23] AlthoughAthenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: first the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[24]and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.[25]

All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the Athenian citizenship was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their "military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]

A possible example of primitive democracy may have been the early Sumerian city-states.[26] A similar proto-democracy or oligarchy existed temporarily among the Medes (ancient Iranian people) in the 6th century BC, but which came to an end after the Achaemenid (Persian) Emperor Darius the Great declared that the best monarchy was better than the best oligarchy or best democracy.[27]

A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in

26

some areas until the 4th century AD.[28] The evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian at the time of Alexander the Great's excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.[29] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy at the 3rd century BC and later had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.[30][31] The lack of the concept of citizen equality across caste system boundaries lead many scholars to believe that the true nature of ganas and sanghas would not be comparable to that of truly democratic institutions.[32]

Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to certain aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens. As such, having votes in elections for choosing representatives and then the votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system ofGerrymandering. For that reason, almost all high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[33]However, many notable exceptions did occur.

[edit]Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small amount of the population, the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, the Løgting in the Faroe Islands, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republicsof medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tirol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.

A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th–17th centuries: Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich. The highest post – the Hetman – was elected by the representatives from the country's districts. Because these states were very militarised, the right to participate in Hetman's elections was largely restricted to those who served in the Cossack Army and over time was curtailed effectively limiting these rights to higher army ranks.

27

Magna Carta, 1215, England

The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta, explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. 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% as late as 1780[34]), and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rightsof 1689 was enacted, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament.[34] The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[35] As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832.

Democracy was also seen to a certain extent in bands and tribes such as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, in the Iroquois Confederacy only the males of certain clans could be leaders and some clans were excluded. Only the oldest females from the same clans could choose and remove the leaders. This excluded most of the population. An interesting detail is that there should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.[36][37]

Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence,

28

that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged individualism.[38]

[edit]18th and 19th centuries

Number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. [39] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some.

In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[40] However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, that a variety of organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.[41]

During the 1820s and 1830s the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.) was the primary vehicle for proposals to return black Americans to freedom in Africa, and in 1821 the A.C.S. established the colony of Liberia, assisting thousands of former African-American slaves and free black people to move there from the United States.[41] By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60–80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The

29

system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[42] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792.[43] Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[44] In 1848, severalrevolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[45]

The Australian colonies became democratic during the mid-19th century, with South Australia being the first government in the world to introduce women's suffrage in 1861. (It was argued that as women would vote the same as their husbands, this essentially gave married men two votes, which was not unreasonable.)

New Zealand granted suffrage to (native) Māori men in 1867, white men in 1879, and women in 1893, thus becoming the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage. However, women were not eligible to stand for parliament until 1919.

Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late 19th century, and various nations and territories have also claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.

[edit]20th and 21st centuries

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions,decolonization, religious and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic.

In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[46]

30

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[47]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change.

However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[48]

By 1960, the vast majority of country-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.)

This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the

period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005

A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984,Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s.

Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . Some

31

researchers consider that in contemporary Russia there is no real democracy and one of forms of dictatorship takes place.[49]

The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstanand the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[50] According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.[51]

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 ofFrancis Fukayama's "End of History" controversial theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to post-democracy, and others who point out the high number of illiberal democracies.

[edit]Forms

Main articles: Varieties of democracy and List of types of democracy

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. The following kinds are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

[edit]Representative

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[52] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

32

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.

[edit]Parliamentary

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]

[edit]Liberal

A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties). In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere.

[edit]ConstitutionalSee: Constitutional democracy

[edit]Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

1. Change constitutional laws,

2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,

33

3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.

Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Examples of this include the extensive use of referendums in California with more than 20 million voters, and (i.e., voting).[61] in Switzerland, where five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues. No direct democracy is in existence outside the framework of a different overarching form of government. Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. The world is yet to see a large, fundamental, working example of direct democracy as of yet, with most examples being small and weak forms.

[edit]Participatory

A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council.

A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of the majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates can vote differently than their sending council might wish, but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via votes of the majority of lower level councils, however, not everything is a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with a participatory economySee: Parpolity

[edit]Socialist"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians."

34

— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary[62]

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat(usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form ofparticipatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.

Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists,Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)

[edit]Anarchist

Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[63] However,anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[64] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[65]

Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[66] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government"[67] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent.

[edit]Iroquois

Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[68] Elizabeth Tooker, a Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois, has reviewed

35

the claim that the Iroquois inspired the American Confederation and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of uniting against a common enemy, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that 18th century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance. What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage, in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers [of the Constitution] borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[69]

[edit]Sortition

Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.

Consensus

Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.

[edit]Supranational

Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of

36

representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected.

Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many other international organizations. European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.

Cosmopolitan

“ Democracy is not only a political system… It is an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human.

”—Nikolas Kompridis, [70]

Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism, is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them.[71]According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organizations, e.g. theUnited Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.

Cosmopolitan Democracy was promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[72] writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi.[73]

The creation of the International Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.

Non-governmental

37

Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.

Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by voting.

Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.

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

Theory

Aristotle

Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[74][75]

For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the

38

second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[4]

[edit]Conceptions

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

Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:

Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[76] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski,Richard Posner.

Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter – with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Anthony

39

Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[77]

Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[78] Some[who?] see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who?] may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds.

Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds.

Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes.

[edit]RepublicMain article: Republicanism

40

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[79] The termrepublic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as apresident, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[80]

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically meandirect democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[81] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[82]

[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 aconstitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) 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 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 lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).

[edit]Development of democracy

41

Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and social factors supporting the evolution of democracy. Cultural factors likeProtestantism influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human rights and political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and tolerance has been practiced).

Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in living standards has convinced people that they can take their basic survival for granted, and led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly correlated to democracy.[83]

Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human capital and within them of cognitive ability. They increase tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence (cognitive development being a prerequisite for moral development; Glaeser et al., 2007; Deary et al., 2008; Rindermann, 2008). [84]

Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent statistical analyses have challenged modernization theory by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal (Albertus and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[85] Neither is there convincing evidence that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents democratization, despite a vast theoretical literature called "The Resource Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between citizen taxation and government accountability, the key to representative democracy (Haber and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[86] The lack of evidence for these conventional theories of democratization have led researchers to search for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997; Acemoglu and Robinson 2008; Haber and Menaldo 2010).[87]

[edit]Facts

42

In practice it may not pay the incumbents to conduct fair elections in countries that have no history of democracy. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5 times as long as those who permit fair elections. [88] Above $2,700 per capita democracies have been found to be less prone to violence, but below that threshold, more violence.[88] The same study shows that election misconduct is more likely in countries with low per capita incomes, small populations, rich in natural resources, and a lack of institutional checks and balances. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category. [88]

Governments that have frequent elections averaged over the political cycle have significantly better economic policies than those who don't. This does not apply to governments with fraudulent elections, however.[88]

[edit]Opposition to democracy

Main article: Opposition to democracy

Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the existing government. The implementation of a democratic government within a non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution. Monarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day remains opposed to its abolition, although often political compromise has been reached in the form of shared government.

Currently, opposition to democracy exists most notably in communist states, and absolute monarchies which appear to have various reasons for opposing the implementation of democracy or democratic reforms.[citation needed]

[edit]Criticism of democracy

Main article: Criticism of democracy

Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable.

[edit]Mob rule

43

Plato's The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."[89] In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men) is a just form of government.

[edit]Political instability

More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.[90]

This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.

[edit]Popular rule as a façade

The 20th Century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation.[91]

44

45