Examine individual changes

'{{Systemic bias|1=European slant|bias=European history|date=November 2018}} {{Globalize|2=Europe|date=March 2019}} {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2016}} {{Democracy}} A [[democracy]] is a [[political system]], or a system of decision-making within an institution or organization or a country, in which all members have an equal share of power.<ref>{{cite web|title=democracy, n.|url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/49755?redirectedFrom=Democracy#eid|website=OED Online.|publisher=Oxford University Press|accessdate=28 November 2014}}</ref> Modern democracies are characterized by two capabilities that differentiate them fundamentally from earlier forms of government: the capacity to intervene in their own societies and the recognition of their sovereignty by an international legalistic framework of similarly sovereign states. Democratic government is commonly juxtaposed with oligarchic and monarchic systems, which are ruled by a minority and a sole monarch respectively. Democracy is generally associated with the efforts of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who were themselves considered the founders of Western civilization by the 18th century intellectuals who attempted to leverage these early democratic experiments into a new template for post-monarchical political organization.<ref>Morris I. The Measure Of Civilization : How Social Development Decides The Fate Of Nations [e-book]. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013. Available from: eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 18, 2017.</ref> The extent to which these 18th century democratic revivalists succeeded in turning the democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks and Romans into the dominant political institution of the next 300 years is hardly debatable, even if the moral justifications they often employed might be. Nevertheless, the critical historical juncture catalyzed by the resurrection of democratic ideals and institutions fundamentally transformed the ensuing centuries and has dominated the international landscape since the dismantling of the final vestige of empire following the end of the [[World War II|Second World War]]. Modern [[representative democracies]] attempt to bridge the gulf between the Hobbesian 'state of nature' and the grip of authoritarianism through 'social contracts' that enshrine the rights of the citizens, curtail the power of the state, and grant agency through the [[right to vote]].<ref name="auto">Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development. American Political Science Review, 87(03), 567-576.</ref> While they engage populations with some level of decision-making, they are defined by the premise of distrust in the ability of human populations to make a direct judgement about candidates or decisions on issues. ==Antiquity== === Historic origins === Anthropologists have identified forms of proto-democracy that date back to small bands of hunter-gatherers that predate the establishment of agrarian, sedentary societies and still exist virtually unchanged in isolated indigenous groups today. In these groups of generally 50-100 individuals, often tied closely by familial bonds, decisions are reached by consensus or majority and many times without the designation of any specific chief.<ref name="auto"/> Given that these dynamics are still alive and well today, it is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bonded group or [[tribe]]. These types of democracy are commonly identified as [[tribalism]], or ''primitive democracy''. In this sense, a ''primitive democracy'' usually takes shape in small communities or villages when there are face-to-face discussions in a village council or with a leader who has the backing of village elders or other cooperative forms of government.<ref name="BA1">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-36707 Political System] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> This becomes more complex on a larger scale, such as when the village and city are examined more broadly as political communities. All other forms of rule – including [[monarchy]], [[tyranny]], [[aristocracy]], and [[oligarchy]] – have flourished in more urban centers, often those with concentrated populations.<ref name="BA0">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-233828 Democracy] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> The concepts (and name) of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens circa 508 B.C. In ancient Greece, where there were many [[Polis|city-states]] with different forms of government, democracy was contrasted with governance by elites (aristocracy), by one person (monarchy), by tyrants (tyranny), etc. ===Proto-democratic societies=== In recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred somewhere else (i.e. other than Greece) first, as [[Ancient Greece|Greece]] developed its complex social and political institutions long after the appearance of the earliest civilizations in [[Egypt]] and the [[Near East]].<ref>Robinson, 1997, pp. 16–17</ref> ====Mesopotamia==== [[File:British Museum Flood Tablet.jpg|thumb|right|The tablet containing the epic of [[Gilgamesh]]]] Studying pre-[[Babylonia]]n Mesopotamia, [[Thorkild Jacobsen]] used [[Sumer]]ian epic, myth, and historical records to identify what he has called ''primitive democracy''. By this, Jacobsen means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialised [and] the power structure is loose". In early Sumer, kings like [[Gilgamesh]] did not hold the [[autocracy|autocratic]] power that later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major [[city-state]]s functioned with councils of elders and "young men" (likely free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.<ref>Jacobsen, 1943, pp. 159–172</ref><ref>Isakhan, B. (2007). Engaging "Primitive Democracy," Mideast Roots of Collective Governance. ''Middle East Policy'', 14(3), 97–117.</ref> The work has gained little outright acceptance. Scholars criticize the use of the word "democracy" in this context since the same evidence also can be interpreted convincingly to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noble classes, a struggle in which the common people function more like pawns rather than any kind of sovereign authority.<ref>Bailkey, 1967, pp. 1211–1236</ref> Jacobsen conceded that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the ''Mesopotamian democracy'' from a ''primitive oligarchy''.<ref>Robinson, 1997, p. 20</ref> ====Indian subcontinent==== [[File:Anandastupa.jpg|left|250px|thumb|Ananda Stupa, built by the ''[[Licchavi (clan)|Licchavis]]'' at [[Vaishali (ancient city)|Vaishali]], which served as the [[Capital (political)|capital]] of [[Vajji|Vajjian Confederacy]], one of the world's earliest [[republic]]s ([[Gaṇa sangha]]).<ref name=Thapar>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-5irrXX0apQC&pg=PA147 |title=Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300|last=Thapar|first=Romila|authorlink=Romila Thapar|year=2002|work=Google Books|publisher=University of California|pages=146–150|accessdate=28 October 2013}}</ref>]] Another claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, ''[[Sangha (Buddhism)|sanghas]]'' and ''[[gana]]s'', which existed as early as the 6th century B.C. and persisted in some areas until the 4th century. The evidence for this is scattered, however, and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, [[Diodorus]]—a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of [[Alexander the Great]]'s invasion of India—mentions, without offering any detail, that independent and democratic states existed in India.<ref>Diodorus 2.39</ref> Modern scholars note the word ''democracy'' at the time of the 3rd century B.C. and later suffered from degradation and could mean any autonomous state, no matter how oligarchic in nature.<ref>Larsen, 1973, pp. 45–46</ref><ref>de Sainte, 2006, pp. 321–3</ref> [[File:Mahajanapadas (c. 500 BCE).png|right|250px|thumb|The [[Mahajanapadas]] were the sixteen most powerful and vast kingdoms and republics of the era, there were also a number of smaller kingdoms stretching the length and breadth of [[Ancient India]]. Among the Mahajanapadas and smaller states, the [[Shakya]]s, [[Koliya]]s, [[Malla (India)|Malla]]s, and [[Licchavi (clan)|Licchavi]]s followed republican government.]] Key characteristics of the ''gana'' seem to include a monarch, usually known by the name [[raja]], and a deliberative assembly. The assembly met regularly. It discussed all major state decisions. At least in some states, attendance was open to all free men. This body also had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority. Other officers, who rarely receive any mention, obeyed the decisions of the assembly. Elected by the ''gana'', the monarch apparently always belonged to a family of the noble class of ''[[Kshatriya]] [[Varna (Hinduism)|Varna]]''. The monarch coordinated his activities with the assembly; in some states, he did so with a council of other nobles.<ref>Robinson, 1997, p. 22</ref> The [[Licchavi (clan)|Licchavis]] had a primary governing body of 7,077 rajas, the heads of the most important families. On the other hand, the [[Shakya]]s, [[Koliya]]s, [[Malla (India)|Malla]]s, and [[Licchavi (clan)|Licchavi]]s, during the period around [[Gautama Buddha]], had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor.<ref>Robinson, 1997, p. 23</ref> Early "republics" or [[Gaṇa sangha]],<ref name=Thapar>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-5irrXX0apQC&pg=PA147 |title=Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300|last=Thapar|first=Romila|authorlink=Romila Thapar|year=2002|work=Google Books|publisher=University of California|pages=146–150|accessdate=28 October 2013}}</ref> such as [[Malla (Ancient India)|Mallas]], centered in the city of [[Kusinagara]], and the [[Vajji]] (or Vriji) confederation, centered in the city of [[Vaishali (ancient city)|Vaishali]], existed as early as the 6th century BCE and persisted in some areas until the 4th century CE.<ref>Raychaudhuri Hemchandra (1972), ''Political History of Ancient India'', Calcutta: University of Calcutta, p.107</ref> The most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate clans of the Vajji Mahajanapada were the [[Licchavi (clan)|Licchavi]]s.<ref>{{cite book|title=Republics in ancient India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zcoUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA93|publisher=Brill Archive|pages=93–|id=GGKEY:HYY6LT5CFT0}}</ref> The Magadha kingdom included republican communities such as the community of Rajakumara. Villages had their own assemblies under their local chiefs called Gramakas. Their administrations were divided into executive, judicial, and military functions. Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an [[oligarchy]] or an [[aristocracy]].<ref name="Bongard">Bongard-Levin, 1996, pp. 61–106</ref><ref name="Sharma">Sharma 1968, pp. 109–22</ref> Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the ''[[Arthashastra]]'', an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the ''sangas'', which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens—a surprising omission if democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments.<ref>Trautmann T. R., ''Kautilya and the Arthashastra'', Leiden 1971</ref> Another issue is the persistence of the [[Varna (Hinduism)|four-tiered Varna class system]].<ref name="Bongard"/> The duties and privileges on the members of each particular caste—rigid enough to prohibit someone sharing a meal with those of another order—might have affected the roles members were expected to play in the state, regardless of the formality of the institutions. A central tenet of democracy is the notion of shared decision-making power. The absence of any concrete notion of citizen equality across these caste system boundaries leads many scholars to claim that the true nature of ''ganas'' and ''sanghas'' is not comparable to truly democratic institutions.<ref name="Sharma"/> [[File:War over the Buddha's Relics, South Gate, Stupa no. 1, Sanchi.jpg|thumb|800px|center|<center>[[Malla (Ancient India)|Mallas]] defending the city of [[Kusinagara]], as depicted at [[Sanchi]]. Malla was an ancient Indian republic ([[Gaṇa sangha]]) that constituted one of the ''solasa'' (sixteen) [[Mahajanapadas]] (great kingdoms) of [[ancient India]] as mentioned in the ''[[Anguttara Nikaya]]''.<ref>Asiatic Mythology by J. Hackin [https://books.google.com/books?id=HAZrFhvqnTkC&pg=PA83 p.83ff]</ref></center>]] ====Sparta==== {{details|Sparta}} [[File:Lycurgus bas-relief in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Bas-relief of Lycurgus, one of 23 great lawgivers depicted in the chamber of the [[United States House of Representatives]]]] Ancient Greece, in its early period, was a loose collection of independent [[city states]] called [[poleis]]. Many of these poleis were oligarchies.<ref>Ostwald 2000, pp. 21–25</ref> The most prominent Greek [[oligarchy]], and the state with which democratic Athens is most often and most fruitfully compared, was Sparta. Yet Sparta, in its rejection of private wealth as a primary social differentiator, was a peculiar kind of oligarchy<ref>Cartledge 2001, p. xii, 276</ref> and some scholars note its resemblance to democracy.<ref name="BKDunn1994_p2"/><ref name="ANPlato">Plato, ''Laws'', 712e-d</ref><ref name="ANAristotle1294">Aristotle, ''Politics'', 1294b</ref> In Spartan government, the political power was divided between four bodies: two [[Kings of Sparta|Spartan Kings]] ([[diarchy]]), [[gerousia]] (''Council of Gerontes'' (Elders), including the two kings), the [[ephors]] (representatives of the citizens who oversaw the Kings) and the [[apella]] (assembly of Spartans). The two kings served as the head of the government. They ruled simultaneously, but they came from two separate lines. The dual kingship diluted the effective power of the executive office. The kings shared their judicial functions with other members of the gerousia. The members of the gerousia had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life. In theory, any Spartan over that age could stand for election. However, in practice, they were selected from wealthy, aristocratic families. The gerousia possessed the crucial power of legislative initiative. Apella, the most democratic element, was the assembly where Spartans above the age of 30 elected the members of the gerousia and the ephors, and accepted or rejected gerousia's proposals.<ref>Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 149–153</ref> Finally, the five ephors were Spartans chosen in apella to oversee the actions of the kings and other public officials and, if necessary, depose them. They served for one year and could not be re-elected for a second term. Over the years, the ephors held great influence on the formation of foreign policy and acted as the main executive body of the state. Additionally, they had full responsibility for the Spartan educational system, which was essential for maintaining the high standards of the Spartan army. As [[Aristotle]] noted, ephors were the most important key institution of the state, but because often they were appointed from the whole social body it resulted in very poor men holding office, with the ensuing possibility that they could easily be bribed.<ref>Buckley, 1996, p. 76</ref><ref>Rhodes 1981, pp. 498–502</ref> The creator of the Spartan system of rule was the legendary lawgiver [[Lycurgus (Sparta)|Lycurgus]]. He is associated with the drastic reforms that were instituted in Sparta after the revolt of the [[helots]] in the second half of the 7th century BCE. In order to prevent another helot revolt, Lycurgus devised the highly militarized communal system that made Sparta unique among the city-states of Greece. All his reforms were directed towards the three Spartan virtues: equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity. It is also probable that Lycurgus delineated the powers of the two traditional organs of the Spartan government, the [[gerousia]] and the [[apella]].<ref name="BALycurgus">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049495 Lycurgus] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> The reforms of Lycurgus were written as a list of rules/laws called [[Great Rhetra]], making it the world's first written constitution.<ref>Raaflaub 2007, p. 37</ref> In the following centuries, Sparta became a military superpower, and its system of rule was admired throughout the Greek world for its political stability.<ref>Buckley, 1996, pp. 65–85</ref> In particular, the concept of equality played an important role in Spartan society. The Spartans referred to themselves as ''όμοιοι'' (''Homoioi'', ''men of equal status''). It was also reflected in the Spartan public educational system, [[agoge]], where all citizens irrespective of wealth or status had the same education.<ref name="ANAristotle1294"/> This was admired almost universally by contemporaries, from historians such as [[Herodotus]] and [[Xenophon]] to philosophers such as [[Plato]] and Aristotle. In addition, the Spartan women, unlike elsewhere, enjoyed "every kind of luxury and intemperance" including rights such as the right to inheritance, property ownership, and public education.<ref>Pomeroy, 1999, p. 143</ref> Overall, the Spartans were remarkably free to criticize their kings and they were able to depose and exile them. However, despite these ''democratic'' elements in the Spartan constitution, there are two cardinal criticisms, classifying Sparta as an oligarchy. First, individual freedom was restricted, since as [[Plutarch]] writes ''"no man was allowed to live as he wished"'', but as in a ''"military camp"'' all were engaged in the public service of their polis. And second, the gerousia effectively maintained the biggest share of power of the various governmental bodies.<ref>Pomeroy, 1999, p. 152</ref><ref>Raaflaub 2007, pp. 40–1</ref> The political stability of Sparta also meant that no significant changes in the constitution were made. The oligarchic elements of Sparta became even stronger, especially after the influx of gold and silver from the victories in the [[Persian Wars]]. In addition, Athens, after the [[Persian Wars]], was becoming the hegemonic power in the Greek world and disagreements between Sparta and Athens over supremacy emerged. These led to a series of armed conflicts known as the [[Peloponnesian War]], with Sparta prevailing in the end. However, the war exhausted both poleis and Sparta was in turn humbled by [[Thebes, Greece|Thebes]] at the [[Battle of Leuctra]] in 371 BCE. It was all brought to an end a few years later, when [[Philip II of Macedon]] crushed what remained of the power of the factional city-states to his South. ===Athens=== {{details|Athenian democracy}} [[File:Akropolis by Leo von Klenze.jpg|300px|thumb|The [[Acropolis of Athens]] by [[Leo von Klenze]].]] Athens is often regarded{{Cref2|i}} as the birthplace of democracy and remains an important reference-point for democracy. Athens emerged in the 7th century BCE, like many other [[poleis]], with a dominating powerful aristocracy.<ref>Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 159–164</ref> However, this domination led to exploitation, creating significant economic, political, and social problems. These problems exacerbated early in the 6th century; and, as ''"the many were enslaved to few, the people rose against the notables"''.<ref>Raaflaud, 2007, p. 50</ref> At the same time, a number of popular revolutions disrupted traditional aristocracies. This included Sparta in the second half of the 7th century BCE. The constitutional reforms implemented by Lycurgus in Sparta introduced a [[hoplite]] state that showed, in turn, how inherited governments can be changed and lead to military victory.<ref>Raaflaud, 2007, p. 51</ref> After a period of unrest between the rich and poor, Athenians of all classes turned to [[Solon]] to act as a mediator between rival factions, and reached a generally satisfactory solution to their problems.<ref>Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 164–5</ref><ref name=BASolon/> ====Solon and the foundations of democracy==== {{details|Solon}} [[File:Solon.jpg|left|thumb|Bust of [[Solon]] from the National Museum, Naples]] Solon({{circa}} 638 – {{circa}} 558 BC), an Athenian (Greek) of noble descent but moderate means, was a [[Lyric poetry|lyric]] poet and later a lawmaker; Plutarch ranked him as one of the [[Seven Sages of Greece|Seven Sages]] of the ancient world.<ref name=BASolon>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9068622 Solon], Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> Solon attempted to satisfy all sides by alleviating the suffering of the poor majority without removing all the privileges of the rich minority.<ref>Robinson, 2003, pp. 54–5, 76–98</ref> Solon divided the Athenians into four property-classes, with different rights and duties for each. As the [[Great Rhetra|Rhetra]] did in Lycurgian Sparta, Solon formalized the composition and functions of the governmental bodies. All citizens gained the right to attend the [[Ecclesia (ancient Athens)|Ecclesia]] (Assembly) and to vote. The Ecclesia became, in principle, the sovereign body, entitled to pass laws and decrees, elect officials, and hear appeals from the most important decisions of the [[court]]s.<ref name=BASolon/> All but those in the poorest group might serve, a year at a time, on a new [[Boule (ancient Greece)|Boule of 400]], which was to prepare the agenda for the Ecclesia. The higher governmental posts, those of the [[archons]] (magistrates), were reserved for citizens of the top two income groups. The retired archons became members of the [[Areopagus]] (Council of the Hill of Ares), which like the Gerousia in Sparta, was able to check improper actions of the newly powerful Ecclesia. Solon created a mixed [[timocracy|timocratic]] and democratic system of institutions.<ref>Raaflaud, 2007, pp. 60–8</ref> Overall, Solon devised the reforms of 594 BC to avert the political, economic, and [[moral decline]] in archaic Athens and gave Athens its first comprehensive code of law. The constitutional reforms eliminated enslavement of Athenians by Athenians, established rules for legal redress against over-reaching aristocratic archons, and assigned political privileges on the basis of productive wealth rather than of noble birth. Some of Solon's reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often{{quantify|date=November 2017}} credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.<ref>Robinson, 2003, p. 76</ref><ref>Raaflaud, 2007, pp. 67–72</ref> ====Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles==== {{See also|Cleisthenes|Ephialtes|Pericles}} [[File:Pnyx-berg2.png|thumb|250px|The [[Pnyx]] with the speaker's platform, the meeting place of the people of Athens]] Even though the Solonian reorganization of the constitution improved the economic position of the Athenian lower classes, it did not eliminate the bitter aristocratic contentions for control of the archonship, the chief executive post. [[Peisistratos|Peisistratus]] became [[tyrant]] of Athens three times from 561 BCE and remained in power until his death in 527 BCE. His sons [[Hippias (son of Pisistratus)|Hippias]] and [[Hipparchus (son of Peisistratos)|Hipparchus]] succeeded him.<ref name="BAPeisitratus">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058970 Peisistratus] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> After the fall of tyranny (510 BCE) and before the year 508–507 was over, [[Cleisthenes]] proposed a complete reform of the system of government, which later was approved by the popular [[Ecclesia (ancient Athens)|Ecclesia]].<ref name="BACleisthenes"/> Cleisthenes reorganized the population of citizens into ten tribes, with the aim to change the basis of political organization from the family loyalties to political ones,<ref>Buckley, 1996, pp. 138–140</ref> and improve the army's organization.<ref>Raaflaud, 2007, p. 77</ref> He also introduced the principle of equality of rights for all male citizens, [[isonomia]],<ref name="BACleisthenes">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9024296 Cleisthenes Of Athens] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> by expanding access to power to more citizens.<ref>Raaflaud, 2007 pp. 144–9</ref> During this period, Athenians first used the word "democracy" ([[Greek language|Greek]]: δημοκρατία – "rule by the people") to define their new system of government.<ref name="Clarke">Clarke, 2001, pp. 194–201</ref> In the next generation, Athens entered its [[Age of Pericles|Golden Age]], becoming a great center of [[Ancient Greek literature|literature]] and [[Ancient Greek art|art]].<ref>Ober, 2008, p. 63</ref> Greek victories in [[Persian Wars]] (499–449 BCE) encouraged the poorest Athenians (who participated in the military campaigns) to demand a greater say in the running of their city. In the late 460s, [[Ephialtes of Athens|Ephialtes]] and [[Pericles]] presided over a radicalization of power that shifted the balance decisively to the poorest sections of society, by passing laws which severely limited the powers of the Council of the Areopagus and allowed [[thetes]] (Athenians without wealth) to occupy public office.<ref>Raaflaub, 2008, p. 140</ref> Pericles became distinguished as the Athenians' greatest democratic leader, even though he has been accused of running a [[political machine]].{{citation needed|date=November 2017}} In the following passage, [[Thucydides]] recorded Pericles, in the funeral oration, describing the Athenian system of rule: {{cquote|Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a ''democracy''. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.<ref>Thucydides ''History of the Peloponnesian War'', [[s:History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 2|2.37.2–3]]</ref>}} [[File:Pericles Pio-Clementino Inv269.jpg|thumb|200px|A [[Pericles with the Corinthian helmet|bust of Pericles]] bearing the inscription "[[Pericles]], son of [[Xanthippus]], Athenian". Marble, Roman copy after a Greek original from ca. 430 BCE.]] The Athenian democracy of Cleisthenes and Pericles was based on freedom of citizens(through the reforms of Solon) and on equality of citizens(isonomia) - introduced by Cleisthenes and later expanded by Ephialtes and Pericles. To preserve these principles, the Athenians used [[sortition|lot]] for selecting officials. Casting lots aimed to ensure that all citizens were ''"equally"'' qualified for office, and to avoid any corruption allotment machines were used.<ref>M. H. Hansen, J. A. Crook, ''The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes'', University of Oklahoma Press, 1999, {{ISBN|0-8061-3143-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=AgNdHQAACAAJ Google Books link]</ref> Moreover, in most positions chosen by lot, Athenian citizens could not be selected more than once; this rotation in office meant that no-one could build up a power base through staying in a particular position.<ref>L. Carson, B. Martin, ''Random Selection in Politics'', Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, {{ISBN|0-275-96702-6}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=HIieJo1Yo1EC Google Books link]</ref> The courts formed another important political institution in Athens; they were composed of a large number of [[jury|juries]] with no [[judge]]s, and they were selected by lot on a daily basis from an annual pool, also chosen by lot. The courts had unlimited power to control the other bodies of the government and its political leaders.<ref name="BA0"/> Participation by the citizens selected was mandatory,<ref>The exception was the [[Boule (ancient Greece)|Boule of 500]], where the poor could refuse to serve.</ref> and a modest financial compensation was given to citizens whose livelihood was affected by being "drafted" to office. The only officials chosen by elections, one from each tribe, were the ''strategoi'' (generals), where military knowledge was required, and the ''treasurers'', who had to be wealthy, since any funds revealed to have been embezzled were recovered from a treasurer's private fortune. Debate was open to all present and decisions in all matters of policy were taken by [[majority]] vote in the Ecclesia (compare [[direct democracy]]), in which all male citizens could participate (in some cases with a quorum of 6000). The decisions taken in the Ecclesia were executed by the [[Boule (ancient Greece)|Boule of 500]], which had already approved the agenda for the Ecclesia. The Athenian Boule was elected by lot every year<ref name="BABoule">[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/75519/boule Boule (Ancient Greek Council)] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> and no citizen could serve more than twice.<ref>Powell, 2001, pp. 300–4</ref> Overall, the Athenian democracy was not only ''direct'' in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also ''directest'' in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule, and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.<ref>Raafaub, 2007, p. 5</ref> And even though the rights of the individual (probably) were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense,{{Cref2|ii}} the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government, but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.<ref name="Clarke"/> <!-- We might need to add a small paragraph to describe the Athenian democracy under Demosthenes --> ====The birth of political philosophy==== {{See also|Socrates|Plato|Aristotle}} Within the Athenian democratic environment, many philosophers from all over the [[Greek colonies|Greek world]] gathered to develop their theories. [[Socrates]] (470-399 BCE) was the first to raise the question, further expanded by his pupil [[Plato]] (died 348/347), about the relation/position of an individual within a community. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) continued the work of his teacher, Plato, and laid the foundations of [[political philosophy]]. The political philosophy developed in Athens was, in the words of Peter Hall, ''"in a form so complete that hardly added anyone of moment to it for over a millennium"''.<ref>{{cite book| last= Hall| first= Peter| title= Cities in Civilisation| publisher= Orion| place= London| year= 1999| isbn= 9780753808153| page= 24}}</ref> Aristotle systematically analyzed the different systems of rule that the numerous Greek city-states had and divided them into three categories based on how many ruled: the many (democracy/polity), the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), a single person (tyranny, or today: autocracy/monarchy). For Aristotle, the underlying principles of democracy are reflected in his work [[Politics (Aristotle)|''Politics'']]: {{cquote|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 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.<ref name="AristotlePol1317b">{{cite web|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=6:section=1317b|title=Aristotle, Politics, Book 6, section 1317b|author=|date=|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu}}</ref> }} ====Decline, revival, and criticisms==== The Athenian democracy, in its two centuries of life-time, twice voted against its democratic constitution (both times during the crisis at the end of the [[Pelopponesian War]] of 431 to 404 BC), establishing first the [[The Four Hundred (oligarchy)|Four Hundred]] (in 411 BCE) and second Sparta's puppet régime of the [[Thirty Tyrants]] (in 404 BCE). Both votes took place [[Demagogy|under manipulation and pressure]], but democracy was recovered in less than a year in both cases. Reforms following the restoration of democracy after the overthrow of the [[Thirty Tyrants]] removed most law-making authority from the Assembly and placed it in randomly selected law-making juries known as "nomothetai". Athens restored its democratic constitution again after King [[Phillip II of Macedon]] (reigned 359-336 BCE) and later [[Alexander the Great]] (reigned 336–323 BCE) unified Greece, but it was politically over-shadowed by the [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic empires]]. Finally, after the [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] conquest of Greece in 146 BC, Athens was restricted to matters of local administration. However, democracy in Athens declined not only due to external powers, but due to its citizens, such as Plato and his student Aristotle. Because of their influential works, after the rediscovery of [[classics]] during the [[Renaissance]], Sparta's political stability was praised,<ref name="PlatoRepublic">Plato, ''Republic''</ref><ref>Aristotle, ''Politics''</ref><ref name="Cartledge"> Seminar Notes by Prof. Paul Cartledge at University of Cambridge, [http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem23.html The Socratics' Sparta And Rousseau's] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060628081131/http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem23.html |date=28 June 2006 }} Institute of Historical Research </ref> while the Periclean democracy was described as a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant), or the poorer classes held power.<ref name="Clarke"/> Only centuries afterwards, after the publication of ''A History of Greece'' by [[George Grote]] from 1846 onwards, did modern political thinkers start to view the Athenian democracy of Pericles positively.<ref>Hansen, (1992), pp. 14–30</ref> In the late 20th century scholars re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and as a "post-modern" example for communities and organizations alike.<ref>Ober, 1996, pp. 15–6</ref> ===Rome=== {{See also|Roman Republic}} Even though Rome is classified as a Republic and not a democracy, its history has helped preserve the concept of democracy over the centuries. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved.<ref>Watson, 2005, p. 285</ref> Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,<ref>Livy, 2002, p. 34</ref> and today's modern (representative) democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models.<ref>Watson, 2005, p. 271</ref> ====The Roman Republic==== {{see also|History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic|Elections in the Roman Republic}} [[File:Maccari-Cicero.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Representation of a sitting of the Roman Senate: [[Cicero]] attacks [[Catilina]], from a 19th-century fresco.]] Rome was a city-state in [[Italy]] next to powerful neighbors; [[Etruscans]] had built city-states throughout central Italy since the 13th century BCE and in the south were Greek colonies. Similar to other city-states, Rome was ruled by a king. However, social unrest and the pressure of external threats led in 510 BCE the last king to be deposed by a group of aristocrats led by [[Lucius Junius Brutus]].<ref name="Livy, 2002, p. 23">Livy, 2002, p. 23</ref><ref name="Durant, 1942, p. 23">Durant, 1942, p. 23</ref> A new constitution was crafted, but the conflict between the ruling families ([[Patrician (ancient Rome)|patricians]]) and the rest of the population, the [[plebeians]] continued. The plebs were demanding for definite, written, and secular laws. The patrician priests, who were the recorders and interpreters of the statutes, by keeping their records secret used their monopoly against social change. After a long resistance to the new demands, the Senate in 454 BCE sent a commission of three patricians to Greece to study and report on the legislation of Solon and other lawmakers.<ref name="Livy, 2002, p. 23"/><ref name="Durant, 1942, p. 23"/> When they returned, the Assembly in 451 BCE chose ten men – a ''decemviri'' – to formulate a new code, and gave them supreme governmental power in Rome for two years. This commission, under the supervision of a resolute reactionary, Appius Claudius, transformed the old customary law of Rome into [[Twelve Tables]] and submitted them to the Assembly (which passed them with some changes) and they were displayed in the [[Roman Forum|Forum]] for all who would and could read. The Twelve Tables recognised certain rights and by the 4th century BCE, the plebs were given the right to stand for consulship and other major offices of the state. The political structure as outlined in the Roman constitution resembled a mixed constitution<ref>This view was already ancient when Polybius brought it to bear on Rome (Walbank 2002: 281).</ref> and its constituent parts were comparable to those of the Spartan constitution: two consuls, embodying the monarchic form; the [[Roman Senate|Senate]], embodying the aristocratic form; and the people through the [[Roman assemblies|assemblies]].<ref>Balot, 2009, p. 194</ref> The consul was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate.<ref name="Balot, 2009, p. 216">Balot, 2009, p. 216</ref> Consuls had power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government and they would preside over the Senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army. The Senate passed decrees, which were called ''senatus consultum'' and were official advices to a magistrate. However, in practice, it was difficult for a magistrate to ignore the Senate's advice.<ref name="Balot, 2009, p. 216"/> The focus of the Roman Senate was directed towards foreign policy. Though it technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the Senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. Also, it managed Rome's civil administration. The requirements for becoming a senator included having at least 100,000 [[denarius|denarii]] worth of land, being born of the patrician (noble aristocrats) class, and having held public office at least once before. New Senators had to be approved by the sitting members.<ref name="Balot, 2009, p. 216"/> The people of Rome through the assemblies had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. Despite the obvious power the assemblies had, in practice, the assemblies were the least powerful of the other bodies of government. An assembly was legal only if summoned by a magistrate<ref name="Balot, 2009, p. 216"/> and it was restricted from any legislative initiative or the ability to debate. And even the candidates for public office as [[Livy]] writes ''"levels were designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout resided with the leading men"''.<ref name="Liv1.43.11">Liv 1.43.11</ref> Moreover, the unequal weight of votes was making a rare practice for asking the lowest classes for their votes.<ref name=Liv1.43.11/><ref>Dion. Ant. Rom. 4.20.5</ref> Roman stability, in [[Polybius]]’ assessment, was owing to the checks each element put on the superiority of any other: a consul at war, for example, required the cooperation of the Senate and the people if he hoped to secure victory and glory, and could not be indifferent to their wishes. This was not to say that the balance was in every way even: Polybius observes that the superiority of the Roman to the [[Carthage|Carthaginian]] constitution (another mixed constitution) at the time of the [[Punic Wars|Hannibalic War]] was an effect of the latter's greater inclination toward democracy than to aristocracy.<ref>Polyb. 6.51</ref> Moreover, recent attempts to posit for Rome personal freedom in the Greek sense – ''eleutheria'': living as you like – have fallen on stony ground, since ''eleutheria'' (which was an ideology and way of life in the democratic Athens<ref>Balot, 2009, pp. 164–5</ref>) was anathema in the Roman eyes.<ref>Balot, 2009, p. 176</ref> Rome's core values included order, hierarchy, discipline, and obedience. These values were enforced with laws regulating the private life of an individual. The laws were applied in particular to the upper classes, since the upper classes were the source of Roman moral examples. Rome became the ruler of a great [[Mediterranean]] empire. The new provinces brought wealth to Italy, and fortunes were made through mineral concessions and enormous slave run estates. Slaves were imported to Italy and wealthy landowners soon began to buy up and displace the original peasant farmers. By the late 2nd century this led to renewed conflict between the rich and poor and demands from the latter for reform of the constitution. The background of social unease and the inability of the traditional republican constitutions to adapt to the needs of the growing empire led to the rise of a series of over-mighty generals, championing the cause of either the rich or the poor, in the last century BCE. ====Transition to empire==== {{See also|History of the Roman Empire}} [[File:0005MAN-OctAugusto.jpg|thumb|A fragment of a bronze [[equestrian order]] statue of [[Augustus]], [[Roman Emperor]], 1st century AD.]] Over the next few hundred years, various generals would bypass or overthrow the Senate for various reasons, mostly to address perceived injustices, either against themselves or against poorer citizens or soldiers. One of those generals was [[Julius Caesar]], where he marched on Rome and took supreme power over the republic. Caesar's career was cut short by his assassination at Rome in 44 BCE by a group of Senators including [[Marcus Junius Brutus]]. In the power vacuum that followed Caesar's assassination, his friend and chief lieutenant, [[Marcus Antonius]], and Caesar's grandnephew [[Octavian]] who also was the adopted son of Caesar, rose to prominence. Their combined strength gave the triumvirs absolute power. However, in 31 BC war between the two broke out. The final confrontation occurred on 2 September 31 BCE, at the naval [[Battle of Actium]] where the fleet of Octavian under the command of [[Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa|Agrippa]] routed Antony's fleet. Thereafter, there was no one left in the Roman Republic who wanted to, or could stand against Octavian, and the adopted son of Caesar moved to take absolute control. Octavian left the majority of Republican institutions intact, though he influenced everything using personal authority and ultimately controlled the final decisions, having the military might to back up his rule if necessary. By 27 BCE the transition, though subtle, disguised, and relying on personal power over the power of offices, was complete. In that year, Octavian offered back all his powers to the Senate, and in a carefully staged way, the Senate refused and titled Octavian ''[[Augustus (title)|Augustus]]'' — "the revered one". He was always careful to avoid the title of ''rex'' — "king", and instead took on the titles of ''princeps'' — "first citizen" and ''[[imperator]]'', a title given by Roman troops to their victorious commanders. ====The Roman Empire and late antiquities==== The [[Roman Empire]] had been born. Once Octavian named [[Tiberius]] as his heir, it was clear to everyone that even the hope of a restored Republic was dead. Most likely, by the time Augustus died, no one was old enough to know a time before an Emperor ruled Rome. The Roman Republic had been changed into a [[Despotism|despotic]] régime, which, underneath a competent and strong Emperor, could achieve military supremacy, economic prosperity, and a genuine peace, but under a weak or incompetent one saw its glory tarnished by cruelty, military defeats, revolts, and civil war. The Roman Empire was eventually divided between the [[Western Roman Empire]] which fell in 476 AD and the [[Eastern Roman Empire]] (also called the Byzantine Empire) which lasted until the [[fall of Constantinople]] in 1453 AD. * The [[Germanic tribe|Germanic tribal]] [[Thing (assembly)|thing]] assemblies described by [[Tacitus]] in his [[Germania]]. * The [[Christian Church]] well into the 6th century AD had its bishops elected by popular acclaim. * The [[collegium (ancient Rome)|collegia]] of the Roman period: associations of various social, economic, religious, funerary and even sportive natures elected officers yearly, often directly modeled on the [[Senate of Rome]]. == Institutions in the medieval era == {{further|Medieval commune}} [[File:Olav den helliges saga CK5.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker]] is teaching the Swedish king [[Olof Skötkonung]] that the power resides with the people, 1018, [[Uppsala]], by C. Krogh.]] 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.{{fact|date=April 2019}} Such institutions existed since before the times of the ''[[Iliad]]'' or of the ''[[Odyssey]]'', and modern democracies are often derived from or inspired by them, or what remained of them. Nevertheless, the direct result of these institutions was not always a democracy. It was often a narrow [[oligarchy]], as in [[Republic of Venice|Venice]], or even an absolute monarchy, as in [[Grand Duchy of Tuscany|Florence]], in the Renaissance period; but during the medieval period [[Guild|guild democracies]] did evolve. Early institutions included: * The continuations of the early Germanic [[thing (assembly)|thing]]: ** The [[Witenagemot]] (folkmoot) of [[Anglo-Saxon England|Early Medieval England]], councils of advisors to the kings of the [[Anglo-Saxon kingdoms|petty kingdoms]] and then that of a unified England before the [[Norman Conquest]]. ** The [[Franks|Frankish]] custom of the [[Märzfeld]] or ''Camp of Mars''.<ref>Gibbon ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]], chapters XLIX, LII; pp. 1685,1857 Heritage Club edition (1946). For a recent view, see [[David Nicolle]]; ''Carolingian cavalryman, AD 768–987,'' p. 45 ff. Intermediate sources tend to be colored by the "Free institutions of our Germanic ancestors" [[meme]].</ref> ** In the [[Iberian Peninsula]], in Portuguese, Leonese, Castillian, Aragonese, Catalan and Valencian customs, [[Cortes Generales|cortes]] were periodically convened to debate the state of the Realms. ** [[Tynwald]], on the [[Isle of Man]], claims to be one of the oldest continuous [[parliament]]s in the world, with roots back to the late 9th or 10th century. ** The [[Althing]], the parliament of the [[Icelandic Commonwealth]], founded in 930. It consisted of the 39, later 55, ''goðar''; each owner of a ''goðarð''; and each hereditary ''goði'' kept a tight hold on his membership, which could in principle be lent or sold. Thus, for example, when [[Njál's saga|Burnt Njal]]'s stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would become available. But as each independent farmer in the country could choose what goði represented him, the system could be claimed as an early form of democracy. The Alþing has run nearly continuously to the present day. The Althing was preceded by less elaborate "[[Thing (assembly)|things]]" (assemblies) all over Northern Europe.<ref>''Burnt [[Njal's Saga]]'', tr. Magnus Magnusson, introduction.</ref> ** The ''[[Thing of all Swedes]]'', which took place annually at [[Uppsala]] at the end of February or in early March. As in Iceland, the [[lawspeaker]] presided over the assemblies, but the Swedish king functioned as a judge. A famous incident took place circa 1018, when King [[Olof Skötkonung]] wanted to pursue the war against Norway against the will of the people. [[Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker]] reminded the king in a long speech that the power resided with the Swedish people and not with the king. When the king heard the din of swords beating the shields in support of Þorgnýr's speech, he gave in. [[Adam of Bremen]] wrote that the people used to obey the king only when they thought his suggestions seemed better, although in war his power was absolute. ** The Swiss [[Landsgemeinde]]. * The [[election of Uthman]] in the [[Rashidun Caliphate]] (7th century). * The election of [[Gopala]] in the [[Pala Empire]] (8th century). * The ''[[túath]]a'' system in [[History of Ireland#Early medieval era (circa 800 to 1100)|early medieval Ireland]]. Landowners and the masters of a profession or craft were members of a local assembly, known as a ''túath''. Each ''túath'' met in annual assembly which approved all common policies, declared war or peace on other ''tuatha'', and accepted the election of a new "king"; normally during the old king's lifetime, as a [[tanist]]. The new king had to be descended within four generations from a previous king, so this usually became, in practice, a hereditary kingship; although some kingships alternated between lines of cousins. About 80 to 100 ''túatha'' coexisted at any time throughout Ireland. Each ''túath'' controlled a more or less compact area of land which it could pretty much defend from cattle-raids, and this was divided among its members. * The [[Ibadi]]tes of [[Oman]], a minority sect distinct from both [[Sunni]] and [[Shia]] Muslims, have traditionally chosen their leaders via community-wide elections of qualified candidates starting in the 8th century.<ref>JRC Carter, ''Tribes in Oman'', pg. 103. London: Peninsular Publishers, 1982. {{ISBN|0907151027}}</ref><ref name=locoman>''[http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/omtoc.html#om0052 A Country Study: Oman]'', chapter 6 Oman – Government and Politics, section: Historical Patterns of Governance. [[US Library of Congress]], 1993. Retrieved 2006-10-28</ref> They were distinguished early on in the region by their belief that the ruler needed the consent of the ruled.<ref>[[Donald Hawley]], ''Oman'', pg. 201. Jubilee edition. [[Kensington]]: [[Stacey International]], 1995. {{ISBN|0905743636}}</ref> The leader exercised both religious and secular rule.<ref name=locoman/> * The [[Papal election, 1061]], * The [[guilds]], of economic, social and religious natures, in the later Middle Ages elected officers for yearly terms. * The [[city-state]]s (republics) of [[medieval Italy]], as [[Republic of Venice|Venice]] and [[Florence]], and similar city-states in [[Switzerland]], Flanders and the [[Hanseatic league]] had not a modern democratic system but a guild democratic system. The Italian cities in the middle medieval period had "lobbies war" democracies without institutional guarantee systems (a full developed balance of powers). During late medieval and renaissance periods, Venice became an oligarchy and others became "Signorie". They were, in any case in late medieval times, not nearly as democratic as the Athenian-influenced city-states of Ancient Greece (discussed above), but they served as focal points for early modern democracy. * [[Veche]], [[Wiec]] – popular assemblies in Slavic countries. In [[Poland]] [[wiece]] have developed in 1182 into the [[Sejm]] – the Polish parliament. The veche was the highest [[legislative|legislature]] and [[judicial authority]] in the republics of [[Novgorod Republic|Novgorod]] until 1478 and [[Pskov Republic|Pskov]] until 1510. * The ''[[elizate]]'' system of the [[Basque Country (historical territory)|Basque Country]] in which farmholders of a rural area connected to a particular church would meet to reach decisions on issues affecting the community and to elect representatives to the provincial ''Batzar Nagusiak/Juntos Generales''.<ref>Kasper, M. Baskische Geschichte Primus: 1997</ref> * The rise of democratic parliaments in [[Parliament of England|England]] and [[Parliament of Scotland|Scotland]]: [[Magna Carta]] (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders; [[Simon de Montfort's Parliament|first representative parliament]] (1265).<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm |title= Origins and growth of Parliament |publisher=The National Archives |accessdate= 2013-11-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/making_history_citizen.htm |title=Citizen or Subject? |publisher=The National Archives |accessdate=2013-11-17}}</ref> The Magna Carta implicitly supported what became the English writ of [[habeas corpus]], safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The emergence of [[Parliament of England#The emergence of parliament as an institution|petitioning]] in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of this parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. ==Indigenous peoples of the Americas== {{see also|Great Law of Peace#Influence on the United States Constitution}} Historian [[Jack Weatherford]] has argued that the ideas leading to the [[United States Constitution]] and democracy derived from various [[indigenous peoples of the Americas]] including the [[Iroquois]]. Weatherford claimed this democracy was founded between the years 1000–1450, and lasted several hundred years, and that the U.S. democratic system was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North America.<ref name="isbn0-449-90496-2">{{cite book |author=Weatherford, J. McIver |author-link=J. McIver Weatherford |title=Indian givers: how the Indians of the Americas transformed the world |publisher=Fawcett Columbine |location=New York |year=1988 |isbn=0-449-90496-2 |oclc= |page=133}}</ref> [[Temple University]] professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois Elizabeth Tooker has reviewed these claims and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The idea that North American Indians had a democratic culture is several decades old, but not usually expressed within historical literature. 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 a confederation, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that eighteenth century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance.<ref name="Tooker E 1990 https://books.google.com/books?id=ARbVmr941TsC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false 107–128">{{cite book |editor=Clifton JA |title=The Invented Indian: cultural fictions and government policies |publisher=Transaction Publishers |location=New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A |year=1990 |pages= [https://books.google.com/books?id=ARbVmr941TsC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false 107–128] | chapter = The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League |isbn=1-56000-745-1 |oclc= | author=Tooker E}}</ref> 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 borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth is largely based on a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer [[John Napoleon Brinton Hewitt|J.N.B. Hewitt]] which was exaggerated and misinterpreted after his death in 1937.<ref name="Tooker E 1990 https://books.google.com/books?id=ARbVmr941TsC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false 107–128"/> The [[Aztecs]] also practiced elections, but the elected officials elected a supreme speaker, not a ruler.<ref name="isbn0-449-90496-2"/> ==Rise of democracy in modern national governments== <!--MUST BE A PROSE DISCOURSE, NOT A TIMELINE--> ===Early Modern Era milestones=== [[File:Jean-Pierre Norblin de La Gourdaine 001.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The [[Royal elections in Poland|election]] of [[Augustus II]] at [[Wola]], outside [[Warsaw]], [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]], in 1697. Painted by [[Bernardo Bellotto]].]] * [[Norman Davies]] notes that [[Golden Liberty]], the Nobles' Democracy ([[Rzeczpospolita]] Szlachecka) arose in the [[Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)|Kingdom of Poland]] and [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]]. This foreshadowed a democracy of about ten percent of the population of the Commonwealth, consisting of the nobility, who were an electorate for the office of the King.<ref> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83hwEc7B9CI Professor Norman Davies on the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth – the Noble Democracy, which deliberately wanted to avoid an Emperor] </ref> They observed [[Nihil novi]] of 1505, [[Pacta conventa (Poland)|Pacta conventa]] and [[King Henry's Articles]] (1573). See also: [[Szlachta#Szlachta history and political privileges|Szlachta history and political privileges]], [[Sejm#Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]], [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth#State organisation and politics|Organisation and politics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]].<ref>See for example Chapters 1–2 in Maciej Janowski, ''Polish Liberal Thought Before 1918: Before 1918'', Central European University Press, 2004, {{ISBN|963-9241-18-0}}</ref> *''[[Case of Proclamations|The Case of Proclamations]]'' (1610) in England decided that "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm" and that "the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him." *''[[Dr. Bonham's Case]]'' (1610), decided that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament". * The [[Virginia House of Burgesses]], established in 1619, is the first representative legislative body in the New World. * The [[Mayflower Compact]], signed in 1620, an agreement between the [[Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony)|Pilgrims]], on forming a government between themselves, based on majority rule. * During a period of [[Magna Carta#17th–18th centuries|renewed interest in Magna Carta]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century|title=From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century|website=The British Library|access-date=2017-10-16|postscript=none}}; {{Cite web|url=https://www.sal.org.uk/events/2015/06/magna-carta-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century/|title=Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century|website=The Society of Antiquaries of London|access-date=2017-10-16}}</ref> the [[Petition of Right]] (1628) was passed by the [[Parliament of England]]. It established, among other things, the illegality of taxation without parliamentary consent and of arbitrary imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|title=Charles I and the Petition of Right|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/petition-of-right/|publisher=UK Parliament}}</ref> * The idea of the political party with [[Political faction|faction]]s took form in Britain around the time of the [[English Civil War]] (1642–1651). Soldiers from the Parliamentarian [[New Model Army]] and a faction of [[Levellers]] freely debated rights to political representation during the [[Putney Debates]] of 1647. The [[Levellers]] published a newspaper (The Moderate) and pioneered political [[petition]]s, [[pamphleteer]]ing and party colours. Later, the pre-war [[Royalist]] (then [[Cavalier]]) and opposing Parliamentarian groupings became the [[Tory]] party and the [[Whig (British political party)|Whig]]s in the Parliament. * English Act of [[Habeas Corpus Act 1679|Habeas Corpus]] (1679), safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal; one of the documents integral to the [[constitution of the United Kingdom]] and the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom#History|history of the parliament of the United Kingdom]]. * [[William Penn]] wrote his [[Frame of Government of Pennsylvania]] in 1682. The document gave the colony a representative legislature and granted liberal freedoms to the colony's citizens. * A [[bill of rights]] is enacted by the Parliament of England in 1689. The [[Bill of Rights 1689]] set out the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, and limited the power of the monarch. It ensured (with the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688) that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, [[royal absolutism]] would not prevail.<ref>{{cite web|title=Britain's unwritten constitution|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution|publisher=British Library|accessdate=27 November 2015|quote=The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch’s prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from ‘cruel or unusual punishment’.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citizenship2.htm |title=Citizenship 1625-1789 |publisher=The National Archives |accessdate=2013-11-17}}</ref> ===Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones=== [[File:Declaration of Human Rights.jpg|right|thumb|''Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen'' approved by the [[National Assembly of France]], 26 August 1789.]] * 1707: The [[First Parliament of Great Britain|first]] [[Parliament of Great Britain]] is established after the merger of the [[Kingdom of England]] and the [[Kingdom of Scotland]] under the [[Acts of Union 1707]]. From around 1721–42, [[Robert Walpole]], regarded as the first [[prime minister]] of Great Britain, chaired cabinet meetings, appointed all other ministers, and developed the doctrine of cabinet solidarity.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Institution of Prime Minister|url=https://history.blog.gov.uk/2012/01/01/the-institution-of-prime-minister/|publisher=Government of the United Kingdom: History of Government Blog|accessdate=15 April 2016|date=1 January 2012|author=Dr Andrew Blick and Professor George Jones — No 10 guest historian series, Prime Ministers and No. 10}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Carter|first1=Byrum E.|title=Office of the Prime Minister|date=2015|origyear=1955|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=9781400878260|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ez7WCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA22&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false|chapter=The Historical Development of the Office of Prime Minister|pages=22–25}}</ref> * 1755: The [[Corsican Republic]] led by [[Pasquale Paoli]] with the [[Corsican Constitution]] * From the late 1770s: new Constitutions and Bills explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders, many based on the English [[Bill of Rights 1689|Bill of Rights]] (1689). Historian [[Norman Davies]] calls the [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] [[Constitution of May 3, 1791]] "the first constitution of its kind in Europe".<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jrVW9W9eiYMC&pg=PA699 |first=Norman |last=Davies |title=Europe: A History |year=1996 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=699 |isbn=0-19-820171-0}}</ref> * The United States: the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&lpg=PA103&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=DemocracyThe God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order|last=Hoppe|first=Hans-Hermann|date=2011-12-31|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=9781412815291|page=103}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YS69fMlIUX0C&lpg=PA566&pg=PA566#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Class in America: H-P|last=Weir|first=Robert E.|page=566|date=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780313337215|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453176/founders-established-system-government-those-who-possess-most-wisdom-discern-and-most|title=‘Natural Aristocracy’ and the U.S. Constitution|work=National Review|access-date=2018-01-17}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s62.html|title=Equality: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson|website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu|access-date=2016-08-04}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.firstthings.com/article/1990/05/jefferson-adams-and-the-natural-aristocracy|title=Jefferson, Adams, and the Natural Aristocracy|work=First Things|access-date=2018-01-17}}</ref> The Americans, as with the British, took their cue from the Roman republic model: only the patrician classes were involved in government.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GWgdn-U_kRcC&lpg=PA114&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The Conservative Political Tradition in Britain and the United States|page=114|last=Aughey|first=Arthur|last2=Jones|first2=Greta|last3=Riches|first3=William Terence Martin|date=1992|publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press|isbn=9780838635001}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Johnston|first1=Douglas M.|last2=Reisman|first2=W. Michael|title=The Historical Foundations of World Order|date=2008|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|location=Leiden|isbn=9047423933|page=544|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dVuwCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA544&ots=IyjxeR16Zk&pg=PA544#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dynamicdoingness.com/democracy-and-the-founding-fathers/|title=Democracy and the Founding Fathers|website=Dynamic Doingness|access-date=2018-01-17}}</ref> **1776: [[Virginia Declaration of Rights]] ** [[United States Constitution]] ratified in 1788, created bicameral legislature with members of the House of Representatives elected "by the People of the several states," and members of the Senate elected by the state legislatures. The Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, leaving that to the constituent states, which mostly enfranchised only adult white males who owned land.<ref>{{cite web|title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives|accessdate=April 21, 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archivedate=July 6, 2016}}</ref> **1791: the [[United States Bill of Rights]] ratified. **1790s: [[First Party System]] in U.S. involves invention of locally rooted political parties in the United States; networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques; use of caucus to select candidates; fixed party names; party loyalty; party platform (Jefferson 1799); **1800: peaceful transition between parties * 1780s: development of [[social movement]]s identifying themselves with the term 'democracy': Political clashes between 'aristocrats' and 'democrats' in [[Benelux]] countries changed the semi-negative meaning of the word 'democracy' in Europe, which was until then regarded as synonymous with [[Anarchism|anarchy]], into a much more positive opposite of 'aristocracy'. * 1789–1799: the [[French Revolution]] ** [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] adopted on 26 August 1789 which declared that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and proclaimed the [[Universality (philosophy)|universal]] character of human rights. ** [[Universal suffrage|Universal male suffrage]] established for the election of the [[National Convention]] in September 1792, but revoked by the [[French Directory|Directory]] in 1795. ** [[Slavery]] abolished in the French colonies by the National Convention on 4 February 1794, with Black people made equal to White people ("All men, without distinction of color, residing in the colonies are French citizens and will enjoy all the rights assured by the Constitution").<ref>{{cite web |url=http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/291/|title=Decree of the National Convention of 4 February 1794, Abolishing Slavery in all the Colonies|author=Center for History and New Media, George Mason University|accessdate=2009-09-26}}</ref> Slavery was re-established by [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]] in 1802. [[File:Suffrage universel 1848.jpg|thumb|300px|The establishment of [[Universal suffrage|universal male suffrage]] in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy.]] * 1791: The [[Haitian Revolution]] a successful slave revolution, established a free republic. *1792 : Sierra Leone : December 1792 : local election in Freetown colony : about 1000 old slave 'Black loyalists' coming from Canada, elected tythingmen (probably 30) and hundredors (probably 3). First election in Africa before local elections in South Africa in 1837, general election in Liberia in 1840, election of a member of parliement of France in Senegal in 1848 and local in 4 towns of Senegal in 1872, about 126 elections in Algeria between 1848 and 1961, parliementary election in Cap in 1854, parliementary election in Egypt in 1883. True African democracy based on elections open to the people was born in Egypt in 1923.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://regardexcentrique.wordpress.com/2018/06/08/elections-entre-1950-et-1990-en-afrique-entre-multipartisme-et-parti-unique/#_Toc516173606/|title=Elections entre 1950 et 1990 en Afrique entre multipartisme et parti unique|author=Régis Marzin|first=|date=20 November 2018|website=|language=Fr|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Its greatest craftsman was Saad Zaghloul, Egyptian prime minister in 1924 and founder of the Wafd party and essential figure of African history.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://regardexcentrique.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/premieres-elections-en-afrique-entre-1792-et-1947-evolution-du-suffrage-et-personnalites-historiques/#EV|title=First elections in Africa between 1792 and 1947, evolution of the suffrage and historical personalities(2 versions English and French)|author=Régis Marzin|first=|date=14 December 2018|website=|language=En|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> * The United Kingdom ** 1807: The [[Slave Trade Act 1807|Slave Trade Act]] banned the trade across the [[British Empire]] after which the U.K. established the [[Blockade of Africa]] and enacted international treaties to combat foreign [[slave trade]]rs. ** 1832: The passing of the [[Reform Act 1832|Reform Act]], which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas in the U.K. and extended the voting franchise to a wider population. ** 1833: The [[Slavery Abolition Act]] was passed, which took effect across the British Empire from 1 August 1834. * 1810: 24 of September: Opening session of the [[Cortes of Cádiz]], with representatives of all Spanish provinces, including those in America. * 1820: First [[Cortes Gerais]] in Portugal under a Constitutional Charter. * 1835: Serbia's first modern constitution * 1837: February 3: Local election in South Africa (British colony) in the city of Beaufort West, the first city organizing the election of a municipal council after the Cape Town Ordinance of 1836 (Order 9 from 1836)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-1848.asp|title=The restructuring of local government in south africa : a historical perspective up to 1994, chap.4 de ‘The restructuring of local government with specific reference to the city of Tshwane’, p4=93|author=Belinda Havenga Université of Prétoria|language=En}}</ref> *1844: The [[Greek Constitution of 1844]] created a [[bicameral]] parliament consisting of an Assembly (Vouli) and a Senate (Gerousia). Power then passed into the hands of a group of Greek politicians, most of whom who had been commanders in the [[Greek War of Independence]] against the Ottomans. *1848: Universal male suffrage was re-established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the [[French Revolution of 1848]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-1848.asp|title=1848 " Désormais le bulletin de vote doit remplacer le fusil "|author=French National Assembly|accessdate=2009-09-26|language=fr}}</ref> * 1848: Following the French, the [[Revolutions of 1848]], although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries, among them [[Denmark]] and [[Netherlands]]. * 1850s: introduction of the [[secret ballot]] in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA * 1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered [[Cape Province]]. * 1856: USA – property ownership requirements were eliminated in all states, giving suffrage to most adult white males. However, tax-paying requirements remained in five states until 1860 and in two states until the 20th century.<ref name=NBER>{{cite journal|author1=Stanley L. Engerman, University of Rochester and NBER|author2=Kenneth L. Sokoloff, University of California, Los Angeles and NBER|title=The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World|date=February 2005|url=http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf|pages=16, 35|quote=By 1840, only three states retained a property qualification, North Carolina (for some state-wide offices only), Rhode Island, and Virginia. In 1856 North Carolina was the last state to end the practice. Tax-paying qualifications were also gone in all but a few states by the Civil War, but they survived into the 20th century in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.}}</ref> * 1870: USA – [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|15th Amendment]] to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or previous condition of slavery. * 1878-80: [[William Ewart Gladstone]]'s UK [[Midlothian campaign]] ushered in the modern [[political campaign]].<ref name=Wiesner2014>{{cite book|last1=Wiesner-Hanks|first1=Merry E.|last2=Evans|first2=Andrew D.|last3=Wheeler|first3=William Bruce|last4=Ruff|first4=Julius|title=Discovering the Western Past, Volume II: Since 1500|date=2014|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=1111837171|page=336|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bbwTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT351#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Price|first1=Richard|title=British Society 1680-1880: Dynamism, Containment and Change|date=1999|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521657013|page=289|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oqY4cFsaK7AC&pg=PA289#v=onepage&q&f=false|language=en}}</ref> * 1893: [[New Zealand]] is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879). * 1905: [[Persian Constitutional Revolution]], first parliamentary system in middle east. ===The secret ballot=== {{Main|Secret ballot}} [[File:Cardiganshire Election ballot paper 1880.jpg|thumb|A British secret ballot paper, 1880]] The notion of a secret ballot, where one is entitled to the privacy of their votes, is taken for granted by most today by virtue of the fact that it is simply considered the norm. However, this practice was highly controversial in the 19th century; it was widely argued that no man would want to keep his vote secret unless he was ashamed of it.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} The two earliest systems used were the Victorian method and the South Australian method. Both were introduced in 1856 to voters in [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] and South Australia. The Victorian method involved voters crossing out all the candidates whom he did not approve of. The South Australian method, which is more similar to what most democracies use today, had voters put a mark in the preferred candidate's corresponding box. The Victorian voting system also was not completely secret, as it was traceable by a special number. The stone inscriptions in a temple say that ballot elections were held in South India by a method called Kudavolai system. Kudavolai means the ballot sheet of leaf that was put secretly in a pot vessel called "kudam". The details are found inscribed on the walls of the village assembly hall. Actually, the once village-assembly hall is the present temple. The details show that the village had a secret ballot electoral system and a written Constitution, prescribing the mode of elections.{{Citation needed|date=September 2015}} ===Waves of democracy in the 20th century=== [[File:Waves of democracy.png|450px|thumb|right|The three 20th century waves of democracy, based on the number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on [[Polity IV]] scale, another widely used measure of democracy.]] {{See also|Wave of democracy}} The end of the [[First World War]] was a temporary victory for democracy in Europe, as it was preserved in France and temporarily extended to Germany. Already in 1906 full modern democratic rights, [[universal suffrage]] for all citizens was implemented constitutionally in [[Finland]] as well as a [[proportional representation]], [[open list]] system. Likewise, the [[February Revolution]] in Russia in 1917 inaugurated a few months of liberal democracy under [[Alexander Kerensky]] until [[Lenin]] took over in October. The terrible economic impact of the [[Great Depression]] hurt democratic forces in many countries. The 1930s became a decade of dictators in Europe and Latin America. In 1918 the United Kingdom granted the right to vote to women over 30 who met a property qualification the right to vote, a second one was later passed in 1928 granting women and men equal rights. On August 18, 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution was adopted which prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex. French women got the right to vote in 1944, but did not actually cast their ballot for the first time until April 29, 1945. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on 2 June 1924. The act further enfranchised the rights of peoples resident within the boundaries of the United States. ===Post-World War II=== [[World War II]] was ultimately a victory for democracy in Western Europe, where representative governments were established that reflected the [[general will]] of their citizens. However, many countries of [[Central Europe|Central]] and Eastern Europe became undemocratic Soviet [[satellite state]]s. In Southern Europe, a number of right-wing [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] dictatorships (most notably in Spain and [[Portugal]]) continued to exist. * MaxRange data has defined and categorised the level of democracy and political regime type to all states and months from 1789 to this day and updating. MaxRange shows a dramatic expansion of democracy, especially from 1989. The third wave of democracy has been successful and covered major parts of previous autocratic areas. MaxRange can show detailed correlations between success of democracy and many relevant variables, such as previous democratic history, the transitional phase and selection of institutional political system. Even though the number of democratic states has continued to grow since 2006, the share of weaker electoral democracies has grown significantly. This is the strongest causal factor behind fragile democracies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hh.se/english/schoolofeducationhumanitiesandsocialsciences/research/maxrange.65441985_en.html|title=MaxRange|author=|date=|website=www.hh.se}}</ref> Japan had moved towards democracy during the [[Taishō period]] during the 1920s, but it was under effective military rule in the years before and during World War II. The country adopted a new constitution during the postwar [[Occupied Japan|Allied occupation]], with initial elections in 1946. ===Decolonisation and civil rights movements=== World War II also planted seeds of democracy outside Europe and Japan, as it weakened, with the exception of the USSR and the United States, all the old colonial powers while strengthening anticolonial sentiment worldwide. Many restive colonies/possessions were promised subsequent independence in exchange for their support for embattled colonial powers during the war. The aftermath of World War II also resulted in the United Nations' decision to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On 14 May 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and thus was born the first full democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage.<ref>Rummel 1997, p. 257. "A current list of liberal democracies includes: Andorra, Argentina, ..., Cyprus, ..., Israel, ..."</ref><ref>"Global Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom". Freedom House (2005-12-19). Retrieved on 2007-07-01.</ref> [[India]] became a Democratic Republic in 1950 after achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. After holding its first national elections in 1952, [[India]] achieved the status of the world's largest liberal democracy with [[universal suffrage]] which it continues to hold today. Most of the former British and French colonies were independent by 1965 and at least initially democratic; those that were formerly part of the [[British Empire]] often adopted the [[Westminster parliamentary system]].<ref>{{cite web|title=How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World|url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world|publisher=University of Cambridge|accessdate=16 December 2013|date=2 December 2013}}</ref> The process of [[decolonisation]] created much political upheaval in Africa and parts of Asia, with some countries experiencing often rapid changes to and from democratic and other forms of government. In the United States of America, the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] and the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964|Civil Rights Act]] enforced the 15th Amendment. The [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|24th Amendment]] ended [[poll tax (United States)|poll taxing]] by removing all tax placed upon voting, which was a technique commonly used to restrict the African American vote. The [[Voting Rights Act of 1965|Voting Rights Act]] also granted voting rights to all Native Americans, irrespective of their home state. The minimum voting age was reduced to 18 by the [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|26th Amendment]] in 1971. ===Late Cold War and after=== New waves of democracy swept across Southern Europe in the 1970s, as a number of right-wing nationalist dictatorships fell from power. Later, in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the [[communist state]]s in the [[USSR]] sphere of influence were also replaced with liberal democracies. Much of Eastern Europe, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and several Arab, central Asian and African states, and the not-yet-state that is the Palestinian Authority moved towards greater liberal democracy in the 1990s and 2000s. [[File:Electoral democracies.png|thumb|350px|Countries highlighted in <span style="color: navy">'''blue'''</span> are designated "[[representative democracy|electoral democracies]]" in Freedom House's 2017 survey "Freedom in the World", covering the year 2016.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FIW_2017_Report_Final.pdf|title=Freedom in The World report, 2017 |author=|date=|website=freedomhouse.org}}</ref> ]] An analysis by the U.S. Government funded [[Freedom House]] shows 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 13% 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.<ref>Freedom House. 1999. [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html "Democracy’s Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century."]</ref> While the specifics may be open to debate (for example, [[New Zealand]] actually enacted [[universal suffrage]] in 1893, but is discounted due to a lack of complete sovereignty and certain restrictions on the [[Māori people|Māori]] vote), the numbers are indicative of the expansion of democracy during the twentieth century. ===Democracy in the 21st century=== In the 21st century, democracy movements have been seen across the world. In the [[Arab world]], an unprecedented series of [[Arab Spring|major protests]] occurred with citizens of [[Egypt]], Tunisia, [[Bahrain]], Yemen, [[Jordan]], Syria and other countries across the [[MENA region]] demanding democratic rights. This [[revolutionary wave]] was given the term [[Tunisia Effect]], as well as the Arab Spring. The [[Palestinian Authority]] also took action to address democratic rights. In Africa, continent of 55 countries, a process of democratization began in 1990 at the end of the Cold War in the transition from single parties to multiparty. However, undemocratic regimes began to organize elections: as a result, the diversions of electoral processes upstream essentially, the day of the vote sometimes, or the compilation of the minutes, in some cases of inversion of final result, have become very common. Out of 55 countries, the process of continental democratization seems almost stalled since 2005 because of the resistance of some 20 non-democratic regimes, most of which originated in the 1980s.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://regardexcentrique.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/2016-annee-des-coups-detat-electoraux-en-afrique-et-democratisation-de-lafrique-depuis-1990|title=2016, année des coups d’Etat électoraux en Afrique et démocratisation de l’Afrique depuis 1990- 27 avril 2017|author=Régis Marzin|date=|website=regardexcentrique.wordpress.com}}</ref> In [[Iran]], following a highly disputed presidential vote fraught with corruption, Iranian citizens held a major series of protests calling for change and democratic rights (see: the [[2009–2010 Iranian election protests]] and the [[2011 Iranian protests]]). The [[2003 invasion of Iraq|2003 US-led invasion of Iraq]] led to a toppling of [[Saddam Hussein]] and a new constitution with free and open elections.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Deeks|first1=Ashley|last2=Burton|first2=Matthew|title=Iraq's Constitution: A Drafting History|journal=Cornell International Law Journal|date=2007|volume=40|issue=1|pages=1–88|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cintl40&i=7|accessdate=19 February 2018}}</ref>{{citation needed|date=June 2014}}{{POV statement|date=June 2014}} In Asia, the country of [[Burma]] (also known as Myanmar) had long been ruled by a [[military junta]]; however, in 2011, the government changed to allow certain voting rights and released democracy-leader [[Aung San Suu Kyi]] from house arrest. However, Burma still will not allow Suu Kyi to run for election and still has major human rights problems and not full democratic rights. However, this was later partially abrogated with the election of Suu Kyi's national league for democracy party and her appointment as the de facto leader of Burma (Myanmar) with the title "state councellor", as she is still not allowed to be president and therefore leads through a figurehead, Htin Kyaw. Human rights, however, have not improved. In [[Bhutan]], in December 2005, the 4th King [[Jigme Singye Wangchuck]] announced that the first general elections would be held in 2008, and that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his eldest son. Bhutan is currently undergoing further changes to allow for a [[constitutional monarchy]]. In the [[Maldives]], protests and political pressure led to a government reform which allowed democratic rights and [[Maldivian presidential election, 2008|presidential elections]] in 2008. These were however undone by a coup in 2018. Not all movement has been pro-democratic however. In Poland and Hungary, so-called 'illiberal democracies' have taken hold, with the ruling parties in both countries considered by the EU and civil society to be working to undermine democratic governance. Also in Europe, the Spanish government refused to allow a democratic vote on the future of Catalunya, a decision causing months of instability in the region. Meanwhile, in Thailand a military junta twice overthrew democratically elected governments and has changed the constitution in order to increase its own power. The authoritarian regime of Han Sen in Cambodia also dissolved the main opposition party and effectively implemented a one-man dictatorship. There are also large parts of the world such as China, Russia, Central and South East Asia, the Middle East and much of Africa which have consolidated authoritarian rule rather seeing it weaken. ==Contemporary trends== {{further|E-democracy}} Under the influence of the theory of [[deliberative democracy]], there have been several experiments since the start of the new millennium with what are called [[deliberative fora]], places (in [[real life]] or in [[cyber space]]) where citizens and their representatives assemble to exchange [[reason]]s. One type of deliberative forum is called a [[minpublic]]: a body of randomly chosen or actively selected citizens that represents the whole population. The use of random selection to form a representative deliberative body is known as [[sortition]]. Examples of this are [[citizens' assemblies]] and [[citizens' juries]]. Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada (2004, 2006) and the Netherlands (2006) to debate electoral reform, and in Iceland (2009 and 2010) for broader constitutional change. ==See also== ===Important documents and milestones=== * [[Magna Carta]] of 1215 * [[English Bill of Rights]] of 1689 * [[Corsican Constitution]] of 1755 (see [[Pasquale Paoli]]) * Sweden's [[Age of Liberty]] * [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] of 1789 * [[United States Constitution|United States Constitution of 1789]] * [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] of 1948 * [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] of 1968 ===Important figures in the history of democracy=== * [[Aristotle]] * [[B. R. Ambedkar]] * [[Edmund Burke]] * [[Cornelius Castoriadis]] *[[Andrew Jackson]] * [[Anders Chydenius]] * [[Oliver Cromwell]] * [[Samuel P. Huntington]] * [[Thomas Jefferson]] * [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] * [[Hugo Kołłątaj]] * [[Abraham Lincoln]] * [[John Locke]] * [[Niccolò Machiavelli]] * [[James Madison]] * [[Nelson Mandela]] * [[John Stuart Mill]] * [[John "Walking" Stewart|John Stewart]] * [[Pericles]] * [[Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester|Simon de Montfort]] * [[Thomas Paine]] * [[Pasquale Paoli]] * [[Plato]] * [[Cola di Rienzo]] * [[Maximilien Robespierre]] * [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] * [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu]] * [[Amartya Sen]] * [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] * [[John Wilkes]] * [[Woodrow Wilson]] ==Notes== {{Cnote2 Begin|liststyle=lower-roman|colwidth=40em}} {{Cnote2|i| Literature about the Athenian democracy spans over centuries with the earliest works being [[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]] of Plato and [[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]] of Aristotle, continuing with [[Discourses on Livy|Discourses]] of [[Niccolò Machiavelli]]. The latest, listed in the References section, include works from scholars such as [[John Dunn (political scientist)|J. Dunn]], [[Josiah Ober|J. Ober]], T. Buckley, J. Thorley and E. W. Robinson, who examine the origins and the reasons of Athens being the first<ref name="BKDunn1994_p2">Dunn, 1994, p. 2</ref><ref name="Clarke"/><ref name="Cartledge"/><ref>Robinson, 1997, pp. 24–5</ref><ref name="BKThorley_p2">Thorley, 1996, p. 2</ref><ref>Dunn, 2006, p. 13</ref> to developed a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy. Despite its flaws (slavery, no women's rights) it is often considered the closest to the ideal democracy and called as ''classical'' democracy. It is often compared with modern (representative) democracies.<ref>Strauss, 1994, p. 32</ref><ref>Cartledge, 1994, p. 27</ref>}} {{Cnote2|ii| The ancient Greeks did not have a word to use for "rights".<ref>Ober, 1996, p. 107</ref>}} {{Cnote2|iii| The United States of America was and is, a republic, not a direct democracy. A direct democracy can be defined as a form of government in which the people decide matters directly, with prime example the Athenian democracy. A democratic republic, is a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. The delegates who wrote the Constitution were fearful of direct democracy; in the words of James Madison: ''"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm|title=The Federalist #10|author=|date=|website=constitution.org}}</ref> Nevertheless, the framers recognized that the public is required to impose a check to the government, in Madison words: ''"dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government"''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm|title=The Federalist #51|author=|date=|website=constitution.org}}</ref> By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" came to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States can be called a democratic republic. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by a state's legislative body.)}} {{Cnote2 End}} ==Footnotes== {{reflist|30em}} === Sources === {{refbegin}} ; Primary Sources * {{cite wikisource |wslink=Politics (Aristotle) |title=Politics |author=Aristotle |translator=William Ellis |year=1912}} * {{cite wikisource |title=Historical Library |author=Diodorus Siculus |translator=G. Booth |year=1814}} * {{cite wikisource |title=The Republic |author=Plato |translator=[[Benjamin Jowett]]}} * {{cite wikisource |title=From the Founding of the City |author=Livy |translator=Rev. Canon Roberts |year=1905}} ; Prints * {{cite book |last = Balot |first = R. K. |title = A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought |publisher = John Wiley and Sons |year = 2009 |url = |isbn = 1-4051-5143-9 }} * {{cite book |last=Bongard-Levin |first= G. M. |title=A complex study of Ancient India |publisher=South Asia Books |year=1986 |url= |isbn=81-202-0141-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Buckley |first=T. |title=Aspects of Greek History 750–323 BC: A Source-based Approach |publisher=Routledge |year=1996 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kmkL54sFzi0C |isbn = 0-415-09958-7 }} * {{cite book |last=Cartledge |first= P. |title=Spartan reflections |publisher=University of California Press |year=2003 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JgFlxZ14hkoC |isbn = 0-520-23124-4 }} * {{cite book |last=Clarke |first=P. |last2=Foweraker |first2=J. |title=Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2001 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC |isbn = 0-415-19396-6 }} * {{cite book |last=Dahl |first=R. |last2=Shapiro |first2=I. |last3=Cheibub |first3=C. A. |title = The Democracy Sourcebook |publisher=MIT Press |year=2003 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=B8THIuSkiqgC |isbn = 0-262-54147-5 }} * {{cite book |last=Dunn |first=J. |title=Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1994 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=plGGAAAAMAAJ |isbn = 0-19-827934-5 }} * {{cite book |last=Dunn |first=J. |title=Democracy: a history |publisher=Atlantic Monthly Press |year=2006 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ccoOfhyjFNEC |isbn = 0-87113-931-6 }} * {{cite book |last=Durant |first=W. |title=The Story of Civilization |publisher=Simon and Schuster |year=1942 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=T24gAAAAMAAJ |isbn = }} * {{cite book |last=Heideking |first=J. |last2=Henretta |first2=J. A. |last3= Becker |first3= P. |title=Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750–1850 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=MyOjQFPY0SYC |isbn = 0-521-80066-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Keane |first=J. |title=Violence and Democracy |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2004 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=E1tIZUtgwOIC |isbn = 0-521-54544-7 }} * {{cite book |last=Keyssar |first=A. |title=The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States |publisher=Basic Books |year=2001 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=uRk-eQBduu8C |isbn = 0-465-02969-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Lijphart |first=A. |title=Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries |publisher=Yale University Press |year=1999 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=a_YGjQiZI98C |isbn = 0-300-07893-5 }} * {{cite book |last=Livy |last2=De Sélincourt |first2=A. |last3=Ogilvie |first3=R. M. |last4=Oakley |first4=S. P. |title = The early history of Rome: books I-V of The history of Rome from its foundations |publisher = Penguin Classics |year = 2002 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHh7heON3sQC |isbn = 0-14-044809-8 }} * {{cite book |last = Macpherson |first = C. B. |title = The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy |publisher = Oxford University Press |year=1977 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=xEasAAAAIAAJ |isbn = 0-19-289106-5 }} * {{cite book |last = Manglapus |first = R. S. |title = Will of the People: Original Democracy in Non-Western Societies |publisher = Greenwood Press |year=1987 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=thuDAAAAMAAJ |isbn = 0-313-25837-6 }} * {{cite book |last=Ober, |first=J. |last2=Hedrick |first2=C. W. |title=Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1996 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=hXNm1Q92oy4C |isbn = 0-691-01108-7 }} * {{cite book |last=Ober, |first=J. |title=Democracy and knowledge: innovation and learning in classical Athens |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2008 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nQVeaO4vJZoC |isbn = 0-691-13347-6 }} * {{cite book |last=Ostwald |first=M. |title=Oligarchia: The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece |publisher=Franz Steiner Verlag |year=2000 |url= |isbn = 3-515-07680-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Pomeroy |first=S. B. |last2=Burstein |first2=S. M. |last3=Donlan |first3=W. |last4= Roberts |first4=J. T. |title=Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1999 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=INUT5sZku1UC |isbn = 0-19-509742-4 }} * {{cite book |last=Powell |first=A. |title=Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 BC |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=75C-b1I0EYkC |isbn = 0-415-26280-1 }} * {{cite book |last=Raaflaub |first=K. A. |last2=Ober |first2=J. |last3=Wallace |first3=R. W. |title=Origin of Democracy in Ancient Greece |publisher=University of California Press |year=2007 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6qaSHHMaGVkC |isbn = 0-520-24562-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Robinson |first=E. W. |title=The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens |publisher=Franz Steiner Verlag |year=1997 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=T1kfcobFRSMC |isbn = 3-515-06951-8 }} * {{cite book |last=Robinson |first=E. W. |title=Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |year=2003 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=T-34_GGd6ukC |isbn = 0-631-23394-6 }} * {{cite book |last=de Sainte |first=C. G. E. M. |title=The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=2006 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=LkYIAAAAIAAJ |isbn = 0-8014-1442-3 }} * {{cite book |last=Sharma |first= J. P. |title=Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |year=1968 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=sQKNAAAAMAAJ |isbn=}} * {{cite book |last=Thorley |first=J. |title=Athenian Democracy |publisher=Routledge |year=1996 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=fK1Iz1qqBqUC |isbn=0-415-12967-2 }} ; Journals * {{cite journal |last=Bailkey |first=N. |title=Early Mesopotamian Constitutional Development |journal=American History Review |volume=72 |issue=4 |pages=1211–1236 |date=July 1967 |doi = 10.2307/1847791 |jstor = 1847791 }} * {{cite journal |last=Cartledge |first= P. |title=Ancient Greeks and Modern Britons |journal=History Today |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=27 |date = Apr 1994 |url= }} * {{cite journal |last=Hansen |first=M. H. |title=The Tradition of the Athenian Democracy A. D. 1750–1990 |journal=Greece & Rome |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=14–30 |date=Apr 1992 |jstor=643118 |doi = 10.1017/S0017383500023950 }} * {{cite journal |last=Jacobsen |first=T. |title=Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia |journal=Journal of Near Eastern Studies |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=159–172 |date=July 1943 |url= |doi = 10.1086/370672 }} * {{cite journal |last=Larsen |first=J. A. O. |title=Demokratia |journal=Classical Philology |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=45–46 |date=Jan 1973 |url= |doi = 10.1086/365921 }} * {{cite journal |last=Lipset, |first=S. M. |title=Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy |journal=The American Political Science Review |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=69–105 |date=Mar 1959 |doi = 10.2307/1951731 |jstor = 1951731 }} * {{cite journal |last=Muhlberger |first= S. |last2=Paine |first2=P. |title=Democracy's Place in World History |journal=Journal of World History |volume=4 |pages=23–45 |date=Spring 1993 |jstor = 20078545 }} * {{cite journal |last=Strauss |first= B. |title=American Democracy Through Ancient Greek Eyes |journal=History Today |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=32 |date=Apr 1994 |url= }} * {{cite journal |last=Rhodes |first= P. J. |title=The Selection of Ephors at Sparta |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=498–502 | year=1981 |jstor=4435780 }} * {{cite journal |last=Weingast |first= B. |title=The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law and Democracy |journal=The American Political Science Review |volume=91 |issue=2 |pages=245–263 |date=Jun 1997 |doi = 10.2307/2952354 |jstor = 2952354 }} {{refend}} ==Further reading== * {{cite book |last=Charles |first=T. |title=Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2004 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2yfZAAAAMAAJ |isbn=0-521-53713-4}} * {{cite book |last=Corrin |first=J. P. |title=Catholic Intellectuals and the Challenge of Democracy |publisher=University of Notre Dame Press |year=2002 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2yfZAAAAMAAJ |isbn=0-268-02271-2}} * {{cite book |last=Diamond |first=L. |last2=Plattner |first2=M. |title=The Global Resurgence of Democracy |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |year=1996 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JBODAAAAMAAJ |isbn=0-8018-5305-2}} * Kaplan, Temma. ''Democracy: A World History'' (Oxford University Press, 2014) *{{cite book |last=Markoff |first=J. |authorlink= |title=Waves of Democracy |publisher=Pine Forge Press |year=1996 |location= |pages= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-EWi759F4PoC |doi= |id= |isbn=0803990197}} * {{cite book |last=Putnam |first=R. |last2=Leonardi |first2=R. |last3=Nanetti |first3=R. Y. |title=Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1994 |url= |isbn=0-691-03738-8}} * {{cite book |last=Vanhanen |first=T. |title=The Emergence of Democracy: A comparative study of 119 states, 1850–1979 |publisher=Societas Scientiarum Fennica |year=1984 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8aQUAQAAIAAJ |isbn=951-653-122-9}} * {{cite book |last=Wood |first=G. S. |title=The Radicalism of the American Revolution |publisher=Vintage Books |year=1993 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sq0J6x21rQcC |isbn=0-679-73688-3}} ==External links== * [http://www.democracyfoundation.in/ The Official Website of Democracy Foundation, Mumbai - INDIA] * [http://www.freedomhouse.org Freedom House] * [http://www.parliament.uk/works/parliament.cfm History of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1216–2005] * [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century] * [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/93/930811Arc3170.html Waves of democracy often get reversed, Lipset reminds social scientists] * [https://ourworldindata.org/democracy Democracy, Our World in Data] {{DEFAULTSORT:History Of Democracy}} [[Category:Political history|Democracy]] [[Category:Democracy]]'