Democracy

== Headline text

---

Headline text

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.

In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In modern times, for example, the citizens who can exercise these powers through voting, is in most democratic nations, restricted to those who are 18 years or more of age.

The term "Democracy" - or more precisely: the original (ancient Greek) version of the word - was coined and the system of citizen-rule invented, thousands of years ago; but this page deals with democracy in its modern sense.

Real World Meaning and Definition

There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.

In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "Rule by the People." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.

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.

Modern democracy can be characterized by the following institutions:

• A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
• Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
• The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
• Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
• Freedom of association
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
• Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities

Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."

Famous viewpoints on democracy

There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right, but to quote Winston Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Edmund Burke gives an opposing viewpoint:

"I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."

Burke's agreement with Aristotle is in reference to the fact that Aristotle called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).

Further, people who believe that any government will do more harm than good (i.e. anarchists), naturally regard the issue of whether the best government is democratic as secondary, comparing that question to "How long is the horn of a unicorn?"

Role of political parties

Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected.

Les Marshall, an expert on the spread of democracy to nations that have not traditionally had these institutions, notes that "globally, there is no alternative to multi-party representative democracy" for those states that embrace democratic methods at all. This is not controversial: representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic". However, it should be noted that the definition used to classify countries as "democratic" was crafted by Europeans and is directly influenced by the dominating cultures in those countries; care should be taken when applying it to other cultures which have different values and do not have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.

Elections as rituals

Elections are not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. In fact, elections can be used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. Some examples are 1960s right-wing military dictatorships in South America, or left-wing authoritarian states such as the USSR until 1991.

Even the form and rituals associated with elections seem to make a genuinely democratic transition of power possible with much less violence and turmoil than if democratic mechanisms are simply put in place to replace a strict dictatorship — many such countries, e.g. Revolutionary France or modern Uganda or Iran, have simply lapsed back into at best limited democracy until the political maturity and education exists to support real majority rule, like the United States.

Tyranny of the majority

This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.

Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule (albeit an indirect form) or its pretense often gives rise to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of the majority in the form of elected representatives empowered to do anything they want to an adversary minority. For example, it is theoretically possible in a liberal democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly).

Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through liberal democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Another common argument is that, in any case, majority rule is preferable to minority rule, and the tyranny of a minority is worse than the tyranny of the majority. In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised majority, but cases of the "tyranny of the majority" are few and far between. Although it is difficult to find any society which can be said to operate (or to have operated) entirely as a "tyranny of the majority", there are some controversial examples of specific issues on which a majority acted against the wishes of a minority:

• In the United States, "Pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized the unborn as an oppressed, helpless, disenfranchised minority.

• Also in the United States, conscription early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfrancised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfrancised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered. Since the end of the draft, the majority in many states has reimposed higher drinking ages on this young minority.

• The majority often taxes a small minority of the wealthy at a higher rate, so that they pay a large majority of the taxes, conservatives consider this unfair and have proposed flat rate and/or use taxes as fairer alternatives.

• Recreational drug users are a sizable minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, with millions living in fear or in prison. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.

• In the United States, in the 2004 elections, many states voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is seen by many as a denial of the basic rights of homosexuals to the extent that civil unions are not an available option or fall short of the provisions of marriage.

• The criminalization of gay sex in Britain during the 19th and much of the 20th century, made notorious by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, and subsequently repealed.

• Socrates, a dissenter within the city-state that invented the word "democracy," was sentenced to death for impiety.

Some commentators object to historical examples of the "tyranny of the majority" in societies that existed during the 19th century and earlier. They note that, until the 20th century, few countries ever adopted universal suffrage - in other words, even in most so-called "democracies", voting rights were actually restricted to a minority. By the usual use of the terms, though, a tyranny of the majority can still occur in such an instance. After all, within the community of those who possess the franchise, however small a minority that may be, a majority may oppress a minority.

"Democracy" versus "republic"

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

There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers." Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never used the words democracy or republic interchangeably. See classical definition of republic. According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate.

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 republics.)

Pros and cons

Traditionally, the purpose of democracy is to prevent the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few. It rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy is believed by some, such as Winston Churchill, to be the "least bad" form of government. 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. Democracy is also related to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.

Nonetheless, some people believe that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision.

The threat of coercive power is still the main cause for concern. A historical example would be Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, who was 'elected' in 1933 by the German people with the largest minority vote. For this reason, some countries have created constitutions/laws that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or, very rarely, a referendum. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. On the other hand, proponents of broader democracy wonder what gives a small minority of people (such as those who drafted the US Constitution, or other constitutions/laws) the right to impose their will on the majority.

In addition to constitutional protections for citizens' rights (such as the right to stay alive, express political opinions and form political organizations, independent and regardless of government approval), some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority.

This proportional vs majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, vs having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional (majoritarian) representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.

See also

• Democracy (varieties)
• List of democracy and elections-related topics

• Corporatocracy
• Demarchy
• Democracy, an 1880 novel by Henry Adams.
• Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville's famous political and cultural analysis of American democracy.
• E-democracy — using electronic communications to enhance democratic processes.
• Internet democracy
• The Kyklos
• Liberalism
• Majoritarianism
• Meritocracy
• Plutocracy
• Seniomeritocracy
• Students for global democracy
• Theocracy

References

• Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, Bernard Crick, Oxford University Press, 2002 ISBN 019280250X
• Democracy's Century Freedom House, 1999
• The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria, W.W. Norton & Company, 2003 ISBN 0393047644
• How Democratic is the American Constitution, Robert A. Dahl, Yale University Press, 2002, ISBN 0300095244
• The Machinery of Freedom, David D. Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company (2nd edition) 1989, ISBN 0812690699 - Anarcho-capitalist opposition to democracy (see contents on web)

External links

• Beyond Plutocracy — Free online book, "Beyond Plutocracy: True Democracy for America" by Roger Rothenberger.
• Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict — Review of trends in democracy over the last century and last decades, and review of related political trends.
• Democracy in the Cyber Age — Article on the changing shape of democracy around the world.
• Democracy Watch (International) — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization.
• The Democratic State — A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty
• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy
• E-Democracy.Org — Non-profit using the net to build democracy in local communities.
• e.thePeople — Site promoting the people's practical connection to Democracy.
• Libraries and Democracy
• New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea
• The National Initiative for Democracy
• Publicus.Net — Steven Clift's articles on democracy in the information age.
• simpol.org — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization.
• Why democracy is wrong (note: some content in German).