Democracy

This article deals with democracy in general and its various forms. For specialized and other common usages of the term, see Democracy (disambiguation).

Democracy, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). This can be contrasted with oligarchy and autocracy, rule by a few people or a single person.[1]

Democracy can take different forms. All modern democratic states are representative democracies, where free and open elections are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. Another form is direct democracy, where voting is used to decide policy directly without intermediaries.

Representative democracy can take different forms relative to the nominating and election procedures. The two extremes of these are bottom-up democracy and top-down democracy. In a bottom-up democracy representatives are nominated and elected by a small grouping of people, forming an escalating pyramid of representatives and officials. In a top-down democracy representatives are nominated by petitions and the elections are by a large grouping of people. For example, the United States has a top-down democracy. Soviet democracy is an example of a bottom-up democracy.

Finally, democracy is used to describe a set of social patterns that are perceived as being associated with democracy. These patterns include various political rights and civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. A democracy in which these patterns occur is sometimes referred to specifically as a liberal democracy. However, there is no necessity that a democracy accomodate individual liberty, as in the case with illiberal democracies.

The word "democracy" has acquired a highly positive connotation over the second half of the 20th century, to such an extent that even many dictatorships claim to be democratic and often hold pre-arranged show elections to garner legitimacy, both internally and internationally. Most contemporary political ideologies include at least nominal support for some kind of democracy.

Kinds of democracy

Main article: Democracy (varieties)

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare, due to the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy.

Representative democracy is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. This form of government has become increasingly common in recent times, and the number of representative democracies experienced such explosive growth during the 20th century so that the majority of the world's population now lives under representative democratic regimes.

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where the power of the government is limited by the rule of law and separation of powers, while the people are guaranteed certain inviolable liberties and rights. Illiberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where there are no or only weak limits on the power of the elected representatives to rule as they please.

History of democracy

Main article: History of democracy

The term "democracy" was coined in Ancient Greece in the 6th century BC. Athenian democracy is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a democratic system. However, only a minority of the adult male population of Athens could vote. Women, slaves, and metics were excluded. On the other hand, however poor they were, all Athenian citizens were free to vote and speak in the Assembly. This is often seen as a form of direct democracy. But Athens also had representative leaders, most selected by allotment rather than elected.

It has also been argued that some of the early Indian states were democracies or at least oligarchies.

20th century waves of democracy

20th century transitions to democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", some associated with wars and revolutions. In some cases there was an explicit imposition of democracy by external military force. Some view this as a form of liberation. World War I resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic, for example the Weimar Republic. It did not at first affect the existing democracies: France, Britain, Belgium and Switzerland kept their system of government. The rise of fascist movements, and fascist regimes in Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco's regime in Spain and António de Oliveira Salazar's regime in Portugal, limited the extent of democracy in the 1930s, and gave the impression of an "Age of Dictators". The status of most colonies remained unaffected.

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The occupation of Germany and its successful democratisation from above, served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.

In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had a predominantly free-market economy and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and communist countries, later it declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations.)

Subsequent waves of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation of the former Soviet bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union.

Much of Latin America and Southeast Asia, Taiwan and South Korea and some Arab and African states—notably Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority— moved towards greater liberal democracy in the 1990s and 2000s.

Freedom House argues that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that in 2000 120 of the world's 192 nations, or 62% were such democracies. They count 25 nations, or 19% of the world's nations with "restricted democratic practices" in 1900 and 16, or 8% of the world's nations today. They counted 19 constitutional monarchies in 1900, forming 14% of the world's nations, where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none in the present. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.

Their evaluations may be disputable: for example, New Zealand enacted universal suffrage in 1893. Freedom House omits this on the ground that New Zealand was not fully sovereign and due to certain restrictions on the Maori vote. Some states have changed their regimes after 2000, for example Nepal which has become a non-democracy after the government assumed emergency powers because of defeats in the Nepalese civil war.

The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History" theory.

Essential elements of a democracy

Four conceptions of democracy

Among political theorists, there are at least four major contending conceptions of democracy.

On one account, called minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not very intelligent. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy . Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William Riker, Adam Przeworksi, and Richard Posner.

A second view is called the aggregative conception of democracy. It holds that government should produce laws and policies are close to the views of the median voter — with half to his left and the other half to his right. Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.

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

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

Political legitimacy and democratic culture

For countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy; a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are needed. There are various examples (i.e., Revolutionary France, modern Uganda and Iran) of countries that were able to sustain democracy only in limited form until wider cultural changes occurred to allow true majority rule.

One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of a "loyal opposition". This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. The term means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each play. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgment of the voters when the election is over, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power. The losers are safe in the knowledge that they will neither lose their lives nor their liberty, and will continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

"Democracy" vs. "Republic"

The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

In constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy (traditionally called pure democracy), whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a constitutional republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and Libertarian debate.

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure.

Modern definitions of the term "republic", however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.

The democratic state

Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy (see philosopher Charles Blattberg, From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ch. 5. ISBN 0-19-829688-6) what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

• That there is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

• That there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

• That there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.

• That the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.

• That the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.

• That, in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

Democracy around the world

File:Form of government.png

States by their systems of government as of April 2006.

---

  Presidential republics

  Semi-presidential republics

  Parliamentary republics

  Parliamentary republics with an executive presidency elected by and dependent on parliament

  Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not personally exercise power

  Constitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power, often alongside a weak parliament

  Absolute monarchies

  Republics whose constitutions grant only one party the right to govern

  Monarchies where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended

  States that do not fit in any of the above listed systems

  No government

The above image, including only those states designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World. Note that not all nations which are officially democracies (as indicated by the first image) are considered to be democratic in practice (as indicated by the second image).

The maps to the right detail which countries of the world have officially democratic forms of government, and which are considered to be democratic in practice (according to Freedom House).

The presidential system of democratic government has become popular in Latin America, Africa, and parts of the former Soviet Union, largely by the example of the United States. Constitutional monarchies (dominated by elected parliaments) are popular in Northern Europe and some former colonies which peacefully separated, such as Australia and Canada. Others have also arisen in Spain, East Asia, and a variety of small nations around the world. Former British territories such as South Africa, India, Ireland, and the United States opted for different forms at the time of independence. The parliamentary system is popular in the European Union and neighboring countries.

Officially non-democratic forms of government, such as single-party states and dictatorships are more common in East Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Freedom House considers many of the officially democratic governments in Africa and the former Soviet Union to be undemocratic in practice, usually because the sitting government has a strong influence over election outcomes. Many of these countries are in a state of considerable flux.

Liberal democracy

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005.

  Free. Freedom House considers these states to be liberal democracies.

  Partly Free

  Not Free

Main article: Liberal democracy

In common usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is, strictly speaking, a form of representative democracy where the political power of the government is moderated by a constitution which protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional liberalism). The constitution therefore places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised. An illiberal democracy is a democracy where these rights and freedoms are not respected. Note that some liberal democracies have emergency powers which can make them temporarily less liberal, if applied (by the executive, parliament, or via referenda).

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created by liberals of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Since then, many non-liberals have given their support to liberal democracy—and, indeed, contributed to its growth.

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the hereditary monarch, but the de facto (legislative) sovereign is the people, via their elected representatives in Parliament, hence a democracy.

Preconditions and structure

Although they are not a system of government as such, it is now common to include aspects of society among the defining criteria of a liberal democracy. The presence of a middle class, and a broad and flourishing civil society are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy.

Western support for democratisation is almost always associated with support for a market economy. In western countries, they do seem inseparable, but that is a geographically and historically limited view. China, which is not a liberal democracy, contains elements of a market economy. Many free-market proponents believe that the emergence of capitalism pre-dates the emergence of democracy, which leads some theorists to conclude that there is a historical sequence at work, and that market economics is not only a precondition, but will ultimately ensure the transition to democracy, in countries such as China. However, many Marxists and socialists say that capitalism and true democracy are at best unrelated and at worst contradictory.

The most liberal of the many criteria now used to define liberal democracy, or simply "democracy", is the requirement for political pluralism, which is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties. The liberal-democratic political process should be competitive, and analogies with economic markets are often used in this context.

The liberal-democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. In the American political tradition, the purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government, and American ideas of liberal democracy are influenced by this. They emphasise the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. European constitutional liberalism is more likely to emphasise the Rechtsstaat, usually translated as rule of law, although it implies a specific form of state or regime.

Liberal democracy is also defined by universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. However, the universality is relative: many countries regarded as democratic have practised various forms of exclusion from suffrage, or demand further qualifications (except for being a citizen), like a registration procedure to be allowed to vote. Voting rights are limited to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. In any case, decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting.

Liberal freedoms

The most often quoted criteria for liberal democracy take the form of specific rights and freedoms. They were originally considered essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy, but they have acquired such prominence in its definition, that many people now think they are democracy. Since no state wants to admit it is "unfree", and since its enemies may be depicted as 'tyrannies' by its propagandists, they are also usually contested.

• Right to life and security of person.
• Freedom from slavery.
• Freedom of movement.
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law.
• Freedom of speech.
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources.
• Freedom of association and assembly .
• Freedom of education.
• Freedom of religion.
• An independent judiciary
• The right to own property, and to buy and sell the same, is often seen as a liberal freedom bound up with the above, though this is a very hotly contested proposition.

In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. For example, laws against defamation limit certain types of speech. There may also be limits on anti-democratic speech, on attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. In the United States, during the Cold War, such restrictions frequently targeted Communists. Now, they are more commonly applied to Islamist organizations perceived as promoting terrorism, or to racist groups. In many democracies, some Islamist media face speech restrictions, exemplified by censorship of satellite broadcasting in France, and also by proposed bans on some Islamist websites in several countries. Most democracies have procedures to ban suspected terrorist organisations, sometimes, critics claim, without a prior judicial procedure. The European Union has an official list of banned organisations, which critics claim overrides the freedom of association in the European Convention on Human Rights and the national constitutions.

The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy. Some argue that this is not qualitatively different from autocracies that persecutes opponents, but only quantitatively different, since only a small number of people are affected and the restrictions are less severe. Others emphasize that democracies are different. At least in theory, also opponents of democracy are allowed due process under the rule of law. In principle, democracies allow critic and change of the leaders and the political and economic system itself; it is only attempts to do so violently and promotion of such violence that is prohibited.

Comparison of proportional and majoritarian representation

Some electoral systems award seats according to regional majorities. The political party or individual candidate who receives the most votes, wins the seat which represents that region. There are other democratic electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, which award seats according to the proportion of individual votes that a party receives nation-wide.

One of the main points of contention between these two systems, is whether to have representatives who are able to effectively represent specific regions in a country, or to have all citizens' vote count the same, regardless of where in the country they happen to live.

Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand, address the conflict between these two forms of representation, by having two categories of seats in the lower house of their federal legislative bodies. The first category of seats is appointed according to regional popularity, and the remainder are awarded to give the parties a proportion of seats that is equal - or as equal as practicable - to their proportion of nation-wide votes. This system is commonly called mixed member proportional representation.

Social democracy

Main article: Social democracy

Social democracy can be considered to be derived from socialist and communist ideas, in a progressive, gradualist and constitutional setting. Many social democratic parties in the world are evolutions of revolutionary parties that, for ideological or pragmatic reasons, came to embrace a strategy of gradual change through existing institutions, or a policy of working for liberal reforms prior to more profound social change, instead of sudden revolutionary change. It may for example, involve progressivism. Today, however, most of the parties calling themselves social democratic do not advocate the abolishment of capitalism, but instead that it should be heavily regulated.

In general, the hallmarks of social democracy are:

• Market regulation;
• Social security, also known as welfare state;
• Subsidized or government-owned public school and public health services;
• Progressive taxation.

Furthermore, for ideological affinity or other reasons, most social democrats are also associated with environmentalism, multiculturalism, and secularity.

Countries often indicated as social democracies are the Nordic countries, for their extensive welfare states and progressive taxation regime.

Illiberal democracy

Main article: Illiberal democracy

An illiberal democracy is a political system where democratic elections exist, and the government is elected by a democratic majority, but is not restrained from encroaching on the liberty of individuals, or minorities. This may be due to a lack of constitutional limitations on the power of the elected executive, or violations of the existing legal limitations. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Some critics of illiberal regimes now suggest that the rule of law should take precedence over democracy, implying a de facto Western acceptance of what are called "liberalised autocracies".

Dissent

Anarchists oppose the actually existing democratic states, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt and coercive. For example, Alexander Berkman refused to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Many social anarchists tend to support a non-hierarchical and non-coercive system of direct democracy within free associations. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement. Many expect society to operate by consensus; as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed.

Some Individualist anarchists are vocal opponents of all or some forms of democracy. Benjamin Tucker said, "Rule is evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule....What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon says, "Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people." According to Robert Graham, "in General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of direct democracy designed to replace representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions." He says, that for Proudhon a "person is only obligated to do that which he has freely undertaken to do" and therefore, the "only form of direct democracy compatible with this conception of obligation is one in which it is recognized that a minority which has refused to consent to a majority decision has assumed no obligation to abide by it. Majority decisions are not binding on the minority. Any agreement to the contrary would itself be invalid because it would require the minority to forfeit its autonomy and substantive freedom." Central to Proudhon’s notion of contract is the idea of self-assumed obligation. Hence, Proudon's opposition to Rousseau's social contract. He says, "What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea...The social contract is an agreement of man with man...by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other."

Some far right and monarchist groups also oppose democracy.

Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

Critics of democracy as a form of government allege it has inherent disadvantages, both in practice and by its very nature. Some of these may be shared by some or all other forms of government, while others may be unique to democracy.

Ethnic and religious conflicts

For historical reasons, many states are not culturally and ethnically homogeneous. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making theoretically also allows the use of the political process against 'enemy' groups. That may be especially visible during democratisation, if the previous non-democratic government oppressed certain groups. It is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism. However, arguably the worst repressions have occurred in states without universal suffrage, like apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the partial democratisation of Soviet bloc states was followed by wars and civil war in the former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova. Nevertheless, statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced people . See also the section below on Majoritarianism and Democratic peace theory.

Bureaucracy

A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternal natural law - although there is no consensus on what this natural law is, even among advocates. Supporters of democracy point to the complex bureaucracy and regulations that has occurred in dictatorships, like many of the former Communist states.

Democracies are also criticised for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making.

Short-term focus

Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking. For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment. However, this risk applies also to other political systems.

Public choice theory

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behavior of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society.

Plutocracy

The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, a form of plutocracy who may be a very small minority of the voters. In Athenian democracy, some public offices were randomly allocated to citizens, in order to inhibit the effects of plutocracy. Modern democracy may also be regarded as a dishonest farce used to keep the masses from getting restless, or a conspiracy for making them restless for some political agenda. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected - perpetuating conspiracies for monopolization of key areas. However, United States economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job, as often happens in United States Congressional elections, where spending levels varied. He concludes:

"A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."

Ownership of the media by the few may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of the status quo or a particular agenda tends to be suppressed by such media cartels, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate the issues. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and does not entail censorship.

Political stability

One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Some think that political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. On the other hand, this is more common in nondemocracies.

Effective response in wartime

A pluralist democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory, act immediately and forcefully.

However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to "the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined" by which "democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars". Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources, or selection of wars with a high chance of winning.

Corruption

Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption .

Terrorism

Research shows that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.[2]

Poverty and famine

Statistically more democracy correlates with a higher gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.

However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. Various theories have been put forth, all of them controversial. One observation is that democracy became widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. Evidence in peer reviewed statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which has been used in hundreds of studies by independent researchers , increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India, which is democratic but arguably not prosperous, or Brunei, which has a high GDP but has never been democratic. There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a few find no or even a small negative effect. One objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canada today have a higher GDP per capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP per capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be noted that Sweden and Canada are among the world's most capitalist nations according to the index, due to factors such as strong rule of law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade. Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition.

It should be noted that correlation is not causation - in other words, if two events happen at the same time, for example democracy and lack of famine, that does not mean that one must cause the other. However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.

Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter.

A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II. The government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years. Provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.

Democratic peace theory

Main article: Democratic peace theory

Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, and that democracies have few civil wars.

There are various criticisms of the theory, including specific historic wars and that correlation is not causation.

Democide

Research shows that the more democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government.

Happiness

More democracy is associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation.

Democracy beyond the state level

While this article deals mainly with democracy as a system to rule countries, voting and representation have been used to govern other communities.

Christian monachal orders often appointed their abbots through the votes of the monks. Many Utopian reformers (Thomas More included) have been inspired by monachal communities.

Caribbean pirate crews elected their captains by voting, contrasting with the ruthless hierarchical system of the navies of their time.

In business, companies elect their boards by votes weighed by the number of shares held by each owner. Cooperatives try to be more democratic by giving each person (a worker or a consumer) one vote.

References

General references

• Harald Müller, Jonas Wolff (2004): Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back: Reconstructing the Social Constructivist Approach After the Monadic Renaissance. (Paper, 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference, The Hague, September 9-11, 2004).
• Emerson P J. Beyond the Tyranny of the Majority compares most of the more common voting procedures used in both decision-making and elections; while Defining Democracy looks at both the historical and current practice in decision-making, elections, and governance.

External links

• Journal of Democracy
• Freedom in the World
• Democracy in the Open Directory Project
• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy
• Democracy Watch (International) — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization.
• dgGovernance — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building
• the site of the Association for the School of Democracy a university-level research and training pluri- and transdisciplinary school of democracy
• Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict.
• The Federalist No. 10 by James Madison
• New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea
• The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria
• The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
• openDemocracy — Global democracy network using information, participation and debate to empower citizens.
• Information Repository for Pro-Democracy Activism in the USA

Critique

• The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty
• Riff-Raff — Democracy as the Community of Capital - A Provisional Critique of Democracy
• Why democracy is wrong
• Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
• Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
• Churchill on Democracy Revisited by J.K. Baltzersen
• Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried
• Democracy is More Than Just Voting

Alternatives and improvements - see also Wikocracy, e-democracy, Internet democracy, and Futarchy

• Democracy with a small "d"
• Conducting new experiments with democracy, Advancing Ethics & Democracy, by Ross King and Karen Vandiver-King
• Democratic Deficit
• On Democracy by James Russell Lowell
• simpol.org — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization.
• Students for Global Democracy
• Articles discussing democracy in online media
• Democracy 2.0