Post by SnitPost by AnonLinuxUserPost by J***@.Bernie benefits union workers
to the exclusion of everyone else.
He'd ban gig workers, like me,
because we outperform unions.
[ see: California AB5 ]
Not everyone wants to earn enough money
to support a wife and kids --
just because Bernie thinks we should
( to the chagrin of the planet ).
The richer and more educated a woman is,
the less likely she is to bear children.
Bottom line to socialism, it has one major flaw...
it doesn't address the lazy slob that won't work realizing that he will
still get the minimum to live on and exist. OTW, the country will be
destroyed in the end... look at Venezuela.
You confuse Socialism with a Social Democracy (Democratic Socialism).
REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).
PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM”): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy become
even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie between
productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is defined by the
open or de facto rule by the wealthy.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM”): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own risks
and costs. With this system the middle class does better, poverty
decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is defined by
the respect for human rights and the environment.
The most common decision making approach of democracies has been the
majority rule. Others are supermajority and consensus.In the common
variant of liberal democracy the powers of the majority are exercised
within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution
limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the
enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech,
or freedom of association.Besides these general types of democracy,
there have been a wealth of further types (see below). Republics, though
often associated with democracy because of the shared principle of rule
by consent of the governed, are not necessarily democracies, as
republicanism does not specify how the people are to rule.Democracy is a
system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what
participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its
outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy.
Democracy makes all forces struggle repeatedly to realize their
interests and devolves power from groups of people to sets of rules.
Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern
societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states
such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes
and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed
before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late
antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the
older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.According to American
political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key
elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government
through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people,
as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights
of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply
equally to all citizens. Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention
to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts
and that "there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and
operationalisation of democracy and human rights".The term appeared in
the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in
Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in
contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of
an elite". While theoretically, these definitions are in opposition, in
practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political
system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship
to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation.
In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern
history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full
enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern
democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th
centuries.Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is
either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power
is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are
now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic,
oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in
contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for
the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need
for a revolution.CharacteristicsNo consensus exists on how to define
democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have
been identified as important characteristics. These principles are
reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having
equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative
democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can
apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of
its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties
which are typically protected by a constitution. Other uses of
"democracy" include that of direct democracy.One theory holds that
democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control
(sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), political
equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only
consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward
control and political equality.The term "democracy" is sometimes used as
shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative
democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism;
equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for
redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and
elements of civil society outside the government. Roger Scruton argues
that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political freedom
unless the institutions of civil society are also present.In some
countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the
Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary
sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence. In the United
States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In
India, parliamentary sovereignty is subject to the Constitution of India
which includes judicial review. Though the term "democracy" is typically
used in the context of a political state, the principles also are
applicable to private organisations.There are many decision making
methods used in democracies, but majority rule is the dominant form.
Without compensation, like legal protections of individual or group
rights, political minorities can be oppressed by the "tyranny of the
majority". Majority rule is a competitive approach, opposed to consensus
democracy, creating the need that elections, and generally deliberation,
are substantively and procedurally "fair," i.e., just and equitable. In
some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, and internet democracy are considered important to
ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to
their own interests.It has also been suggested that a basic feature of
democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully
in the life of their society. With its emphasis on notions of social
contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also
be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is
defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an
equal say in lawmaking.While representative democracy is sometimes
equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic"
classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. Many
democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the United
Kingdom.HistoryHistorically, democracies and republics have been rare.
Republican theorists linked democracy to small size: as political units
grew in size, the likelihood increased that the government would turn
despotic. At the same time, small political units were vulnerable to
conquest. Montesquieu wrote, "If a republic be small, it is destroyed by
a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal
imperfection." According to Johns Hopkins University political scientist
Daniel Deudney, the creation of the United States, with its large size
and its system of checks and balances, was a solution to the dual
problems of size.Historic origins and proto-democratic
societiesRetrospectively different polity, outside of declared
democracies, have been described as proto-democratic (see History of
democracy).Ancient originsThe term "democracy" first appeared in ancient
Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens
during classical antiquity. The word comes from demos, "common people"
and kratos, "strength". Led by Cleisthenes, Athenians established what
is generally held as the first democracy in 508–507 BC. Cleisthenes is
referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy."Athenian democracy
took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing
features: the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few
existing government administrative and judicial offices, and a
legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens. All eligible
citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the
laws of the city state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women,
slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / métoikoi), non-landowners, and men under
20 years of age.The exclusion of large parts of the population from the
citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of
citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to
the obligation to fight war campaigns.Athenian democracy was not only
direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people,
but also the most direct 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. Even though the rights of the individual were not
secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient
Greeks had no word for "rights"), 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.Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700
BC. The Apella was an assembly of the people, held once a month, in
which every male citizen of at least 30 years of age could participate.
In the Apella, Spartans elected leaders and cast votes by range voting
and shouting. Aristotle called this "childish", as compared with the
stone voting ballots used by the Athenians. Sparta adopted it because of
its simplicity, and to prevent any bias voting, buying, or cheating that
was predominant in the early democratic elections.Even though the Roman
Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a
minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for
representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight
through a system of gerrymandering, so most high officials, including
members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families. In
addition, the Roman Republic was the first government in the western
world to have a Republic as a nation-state, although it didn't have much
of a democracy. The Roman model of governance inspired many political
thinkers over the centuries, and today's modern representative
democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was
a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected
representatives, and which had an elected or nominated leader. Other
cultures, such as the Iroquois Nation in the Americas between around
1450 and 1600 AD also developed a form of democratic society before they
came in contact with the Europeans. This indicates that forms of
democracy may have been invented in other societies around the
world.Middle AgesDuring the Middle Ages, there were various systems
involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small
part of the population. These included:the Things of Scandinavia,The
1061 Papal election,the Althing in Iceland,the Løgting in the Faeroe
Islands,Papal conclaves, Elections of Bishops, Abbots, Abbesses carried
on, and evolved from their classical roots.the election of Uthman in the
Rashidun Caliphate,the South Indian Kingdom of the Chola in the state of
Tamil Nadu in the Indian Subcontinent had an electoral system at 920
A.D., about 1100 years ago,Carantania, old Slavic/Slovenian
principality, the Ducal Inauguration from 7th to 15th century,the
upper-caste election of the Gopala in the Bengal region of the Indian
Subcontinent,the Holy Roman Empire's Hoftag and Imperial Diets (mostly
Nobles and Clergy but 100 Free Cities were included),Frisia in the
10th–15th Century (Weight of vote based on landownership) including the
peasant republic of the Dithmarschenthe Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
(10% of population),certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice,
Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, Siena and San Marinothe 200+ Royal
and Imperial Free Cities of Central and Northern Europe, including
Strasbourg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Lübeck, Hamburg, Bremen, Nuremberg,
Bruges, Ghent, Augsburg, Amsterdam, Prague, Krakow, and Gdansk,
organized under Stadtrecht or German Town Law.the Hansetag of the
Hanseatic League.the various permanent town leagues or Städtebund such
as the Lusatian League, the Decapole, and the Pentapolitanathe Republic
of Ragusa (now Dubrovnik) on the Dalmatian coast in what is today
Croatia.the free pirate groups of the Baltic such as the Victual
Brothers.the Cortes of León,the tuatha system in early medieval
Ireland,the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia,The
States in Tirol and the Old Swiss Confederacy in Switzerland,the
autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in
Japan,Volta-Nigeric societies such as Igbo.the Mekhk-Khel system of the
Nakh peoples of the North Caucasus, by which representatives to the
Council of Elders for each teip (clan) were popularly elected by that
teip's members.The 10th Sikh Guru Gobind Singh ji (Nanak X) established
the world's first Sikh democratic republic state ending the aristocracy
on day of 1st Vasakh 1699 and Gurbani as sole constitution of this Sikh
republic on the Indian subcontinent.Most regions in medieval Europe were
ruled by clergy or feudal lords.The Kouroukan Fouga divided the Mali
Empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great
assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar
to a constitutional monarchy than a democratic republic.The Parliament
of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings
written into Magna Carta (1215), which explicitly protected certain
rights of the King's subjects and implicitly supported what became the
English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against
unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The first representative
national assembly in England was Simon de Montfort's Parliament in 1265.
The emergence of petitioning is some of the earliest evidence of
parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of
ordinary people. However, the power to call parliament remained at the
pleasure of the monarch.Studies have linked the emergence of
parliamentary institutions in Europe during the medieval period to urban
agglomeration and the creation of new classes, such as artisans, as well
as the presence of nobility and religious elites. Scholars have also
linked the emergence of representative government to Europe's relative
political fragmentation. New York University political scientist David
Stasavage links the fragmentation of Europe, and its subsequent
democratization, to the manner in which the Roman Empire collapsed:
Roman territory was conquered by small fragmented groups of Germanic
tribes, thus leading to the creation of small political units where
rulers were relatively weak and needed the consent of the governed to
ward off foreign threats.Modern eraEarly modern periodIn 17th century
England, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta. The Parliament of
England passed the Petition of Right in 1628 which established certain
liberties for subjects. The English Civil War (1642–1651) was fought
between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament, during which
the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to
political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647.
Subsequently, the Protectorate (1653–59) and the English Restoration
(1660) restored more autocratic rule, although Parliament passed the
Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 which strengthened the convention that forbade
detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. After the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689 which
codified certain rights and liberties and is still in effect. The Bill
set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of
speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring
that, unlike much of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not
prevail. Economic historians Douglass North and Barry Weingast have
characterized the institutions implemented in the Glorious Revolution as
a resounding success in terms of restraining the government and ensuring
protection for property rights.In the Cossack republics of Ukraine in
the 16th and 17th centuries, the Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich,
the holder of the highest post of Hetman was elected by the
representatives from the country's districts.In North America,
representative government began in Jamestown, Virginia, with the
election of the House of Burgesses (forerunner of the Virginia General
Assembly) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established
colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic and which
contributed to the democratic development of the United States; although
these local assemblies had some small amounts of devolved power, the
ultimate authority was held by the Crown and the English Parliament. The
Puritans (Pilgrim Fathers), Baptists, and Quakers who founded these
colonies applied the democratic organisation of their congregations also
to the administration of their communities in worldly matters.18th and
19th centuriesThe first Parliament of Great Britain was established in
1707, after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of
Scotland under the Acts of Union. Although the monarch increasingly
became a figurehead,only a small minority actually had a voice;
Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population (less
than 3% as late as 1780). During the Age of Liberty in Sweden
(1718–1772), civil rights were expanded and power shifted from the
monarch to parliament. The taxed peasantry was represented in
parliament, although with little influence, but commoners without taxed
property had no suffrage.The creation of the short-lived Corsican
Republic in 1755 marked the first nation in modern history to adopt a
democratic constitution (all men and women above age of 25 could vote).
This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment
principles and included female suffrage, something that was not granted
in most other democracies until the 20th century.In the American
colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult
white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, most free
black people and most women were not extended the franchise. This
changed state by state, beginning with the republican State of New
Connecticut, soon after called Vermont, which, on declaring independence
of Great Britain in 1777, adopted a constitution modelled on
Pennsylvania's with citizenship and democratic suffrage for males with
or without property, and went on to abolish slavery. On the American
frontier, democracy became a way of life, with more widespread social,
economic and political equality. Although not described as a democracy
by the founding fathers, they shared a determination to root the
American experiment in the principles of natural freedom and
equality.The American Revolution led to the adoption of the United
States Constitution in 1787, the oldest surviving, still active,
governmental codified constitution. The Constitution provided for an
elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some,
but did not end slavery nor extend voting rights in the United States,
instead leaving the issue of suffrage to the individual states.
Generally, suffrage was limited to white male property owners and
taxpayers, of whom between 60% and 90% were eligible to vote by the end
of the 1780s. The Bill of Rights in 1791 set limits on government power
to protect personal freedoms but had little impact on judgements by the
courts for the first 130 years after ratification.The Polish
Constitution of 3 May 1791 (Polish: Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja) is
called "the first constitution of its kind in Europe" by historian
Norman Davies. Short lived due to Russian, German, Austrian aggression,
It was instituted by the Government Act (Polish: Ustawa rządowa) adopted
on that date by the Sejm (parliament) of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth. (Polish: Ustawa Rządowa, "Governance Act"), was a
constitution adopted by the Great Sejm ("Four-Year Sejm", meeting in
1788–92) for the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, a dual monarchy
comprising the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania. The Constitution was designed to correct the Commonwealth's
political flaws and had been preceded by a period of agitation for—and
gradual introduction of—reforms, beginning with the Convocation Sejm of
1764 and the consequent election that year of Stanisław August
Poniatowski as the Commonwealth's last king.The Constitution sought to
implement a more effective constitutional monarchy, introduced political
equality between townspeople and nobility, and placed the peasants under
the protection of the government, mitigating the worst abuses of
serfdom. It banned pernicious parliamentary institutions such as the
liberum veto, which had put the Sejm at the mercy of any single deputy,
who could veto and thus undo all the legislation that had been adopted
by that Sejm. The Commonwealth's neighbours reacted with hostility to
the adoption of the Constitution. King Frederick William II broke
Prussia's alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and joined
with Catherine the Great's Imperial Russia and the Targowica
Confederation of anti-reform Polish magnates to defeat the Commonwealth
in the Polish–Russian War of 1792.The 1791 Constitution was in force for
less than 19 months. It was declared null and void by the Grodno Sejm
that met in 1793, though the Sejm's legal power to do so was
questionable. The Second and Third Partitions of Poland (1793, 1795)
ultimately ended Poland's sovereign existence until the close of World
War I in 1918. Over those 123 years, the 1791 Constitution helped keep
alive Polish aspirations for the eventual restoration of the country's
sovereignty. In the words of two of its principal authors, Ignacy
Potocki and Hugo Kołłątaj, the 1791 Constitution was "the last will and
testament of the expiring Homeland."The Constitution of 3 May 1791
combined a monarchic republic with a clear division of executive,
legislative, and judiciary powers. It is generally considered Europe's
first, and the world's second, modern written national constitution,
after the United States Constitution that had come into force in 1789.In
1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention
was elected by all men in 1792. However, in the early 19th century,
little of democracy—as theory, practice, or even as word—remained in the
North Atlantic world.During this period, slavery remained a social and
economic institution in places around the world. This was particularly
the case in the United States, and especially in the last fifteen slave
states that kept slavery legal in the American South until the Civil
War. A variety of organisations were established advocating the movement
of black people from the United States to locations where they would
enjoy greater freedom and equality.The United Kingdom's Slave Trade Act
1807 banned the trade across the British Empire, which was enforced
internationally by the Royal Navy under treaties Britain negotiated with
other nations. As the voting franchise in the U.K. was increased, it
also was made more uniform in a series of reforms beginning with the
Reform Act 1832, although the United Kingdom did not manage to become a
complete democracy well into the 20th century. In 1833, the United
Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act which took effect across the
British Empire.Universal male suffrage was established in France in
March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848. In 1848,
several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with
popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic
government.In the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the
United States had grown to four million, and in Reconstruction after the
Civil War (late 1860s), the newly freed slaves became citizens with a
nominal right to vote for men. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not
secured until after the Civil Rights Movement gained passage by the
United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.In 1876 the
Ottoman Empire transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a
constitutional one, and held two elections the next year to elect
members to her newly formed parliament. Provisional Electoral
Regulations were issued on 29 October 1876, stating that the elected
members of the Provincial Administrative Councils would elect members to
the first Parliament. On 24 December a new constitution was promulgated,
which provided for a bicameral Parliament with a Senate appointed by the
Sultan and a popularly elected Chamber of Deputies. Only men above the
age of 30 who were competent in Turkish and had full civil rights were
allowed to stand for election. Reasons for disqualification included
holding dual citizenship, being employed by a foreign government, being
bankrupt, employed as a servant, or having "notoriety for ill deeds".
Full universal suffrage was achieved in 1934.20th and 21st
centuries20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in
successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting from wars,
revolutions, decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances.
Global waves of "democratic regression" reversing democratization, have
also occurred in the 1920s and 30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the
2010s.World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and
Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states
from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic.In the 1920s
democracy flourished and women's suffrage advanced, but the Great
Depression brought disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe,
Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships.
Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and
Portugal, as well as non-democratic governments in the Baltics, the
Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.World War II
brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The
democratisation of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied
Germany (disputed), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a
model for the later theory of government change. However, most of
Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany fell into the
non-democratic Soviet bloc.The war was followed by decolonisation, and
again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic
constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and
continues to be so. Countries that were once part of the British Empire
often adopted the British Westminster system.By 1960, the vast majority
of country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the
world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections,
and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in "Communist" nations and
the former colonies.)A subsequent wave of democratisation brought
substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain,
Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South
America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s
(Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile
in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia
by the mid-to-late 1980s.Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with
resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the
democratisation and liberalisation of the former Eastern bloc countries.
The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and
culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or
candidate members of the European Union. In 1986, after the toppling of
the most prominent Asian dictatorship, the only democratic state of its
kind at the time emerged in the Philippines with the rise of Corazon
Aquino, who would later be known as the Mother of Asian Democracy.The
liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most
prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of
liberalisation include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer
Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange
Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in
Tunisia.According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral
democracies (up from 40 in 1972). According to World Forum on Democracy,
electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries
and constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time
liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and
respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number
and represent 38 percent of the global population.Most electoral
democracies continue to exclude those younger than 18 from voting. The
voting age has been lowered to 16 for national elections in a number of
countries, including Brazil, Austria, Cuba, and Nicaragua. In
California, a 2004 proposal to permit a quarter vote at 14 and a half
vote at 16 was ultimately defeated. In 2008, the German parliament
proposed but shelved a bill that would grant the vote to each citizen at
birth, to be used by a parent until the child claims it for
themselves.In 2007 the United Nations declared 15 September the
International Day of Democracy.According to Freedom House, starting in
2005, there have been eleven consecutive years in which declines in
political rights and civil liberties throughout the world have
outnumbered improvements, as populist and nationalist political forces
have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under the Law and Justice
Party) to the Philippines (under Rodrigo Duterte).In a Freedom House
report released in 2018, Democracy Scores for most countries declined
for the 12th consecutive year. The Christian Science Monitor reported
that nationalist and populist political ideologies were gaining ground,
at the expense of rule of law, in countries like Poland, Turkey and
Hungary. For example, in Poland, the President appointed 27 new Supreme
Court judges over objections from the European Union. In Turkey,
thousands of judges were removed from their positions following a failed
coup attempt during a government crackdown .Measurement of
democracySeveral freedom indices are published by several organisations
according to their own various definitions of the term and relying on
different types of data:Freedom in the World published each year since
1972 by the U.S.-based Freedom House ranks countries by political rights
and civil liberties that are derived in large measure from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Countries are assessed as free, partly
free, or unfree.Worldwide Press Freedom Index is published each year
since 2002 (except that 2011 was combined with 2012) by France-based
Reporters Without Borders. Countries are assessed as having a good
situation, a satisfactory situation, noticeable problems, a difficult
situation, or a very serious situation.The Index of Freedom in the World
is an index measuring classical civil liberties published by Canada's
Fraser Institute, Germany's Liberales Institute, and the U.S. Cato
Institute. It is not currently included in the table below.The CIRI
Human Rights Data Project measures a range of human, civil, women's and
workers rights. It is now hosted by the University of Connecticut. It
was created in 1994. In its 2011 report, the U.S. was ranked 38th in
overall human rights.The Democracy Index, published by the U.K.-based
Economist Intelligence Unit, is an assessment of countries' democracy.
Countries are rated to be either Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies,
Hybrid Regimes, or Authoritarian regimes. Full democracies, flawed
democracies, and hybrid regimes are considered to be democracies, and
the authoritarian nations are considered to be dictatorial. The index is
based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories.The
U.S.-based Polity data series is a widely used data series in political
science research. It contains coded annual information on regime
authority characteristics and transitions for all independent states
with greater than 500,000 total population and covers the years
1800–2006. Polity's conclusions about a state's level of democracy are
based on an evaluation of that state's elections for competitiveness,
openness and level of participation. Data from this series is not
currently included in the table below. The Polity work is sponsored by
the Political Instability Task Force (PITF) which is funded by the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency. However, the views expressed in the reports
are the authors' alone and do not represent the views of the US
Government.MaxRange, a dataset defining level of democracy and
institutional structure(regime-type) on a 100-graded scale where every
value represents a unique regime type. Values are sorted from 1–100
based on level of democracy and political accountability. MaxRange
defines the value corresponding to all states and every month from 1789
to 2015 and updating. MaxRange is created and developed by Max Range,
and is now associated with the university of Halmstad, Sweden.Dieter
Fuchs and Edeltraud Roller suggest that, in order to truly measure the
quality of democracy, objective measurements need to be complemented by
"subjective measurements based on the perspective of citizens".
Similarly, Quinton Mayne and Brigitte Geißel also defend that the
quality of democracy does not depend exclusively on the performance of
institutions, but also on the citizens' own dispositions and
commitment.Difficulties in measuring democracyBecause democracy is an
overarching concept that includes the functioning of diverse
institutions which are not easy to measure, strong limitations exist in
quantifying and econometrically measuring the potential effects of
democracy or its relationship with other phenomena—whether inequality,
poverty, education etc. Given the constraints in acquiring reliable data
with within-country variation on aspects of democracy, academics have
largely studied cross-country variations. Yet variations between
democratic institutions are very large across countries which constrains
meaningful comparisons using statistical approaches. Since democracy is
typically measured aggregately as a macro variable using a single
observation for each country and each year, studying democracy faces a
range of econometric constraints and is limited to basic correlations.
Cross-country comparison of a composite, comprehensive and qualitative
concept like democracy may thus not always be, for many purposes,
methodologically rigorous or useful.Types of governmental
democraciesDemocracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and
more freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy
is not structured to prohibit the government from excluding the people
from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering
the separation of powers in its favour, then a branch of the system can
accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.The following kinds
of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of
aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single
system.Basic formsSeveral variants of democracy exist, but there are two
basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible
citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy,
in which all eligible citizens have active participation in the
political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives
directly. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible
citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised
indirectly through elected representatives; this is called a
representative democracy.DirectDirect democracy is a political system
where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally,
contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The use of a
lot system, a characteristic of Athenian democracy, is unique to direct
democracies. In this system, important governmental and administrative
tasks are performed by citizens picked from a lottery. A direct
democracy gives the voting population the power to:Change constitutional
laws,Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,Give
binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the
end of their elected term or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a
campaign promise.Within modern-day representative governments, certain
electoral tools like referendums, citizens' initiatives and recall
elections are referred to as forms of direct democracy. However, some
advocates of direct democracy argue for local assemblies of face-to-face
discussion. Direct democracy as a government system currently exists in
the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus, the Rebel
Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, communities affiliated with the
CIPO-RFM, the Bolivian city councils of FEJUVE, and Kurdish cantons of
Rojava.RepresentativeRepresentative democracy involves the election of
government officials by the people being represented. If the head of
state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic
republic. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate
with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Most western countries have
representative systems.Representatives may be elected or become
diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency),
or represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with
some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies
also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A
characteristic of representative democracy is that while the
representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's
interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how
best to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon representative
democracy, pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms
with democracyParliamentaryParliamentary democracy is a representative
democracy where government is appointed by, or can be dismissed by,
representatives as opposed to a "presidential rule" wherein the
president is both head of state and the head of government and is
elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is
exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister
at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to
the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No
Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the
Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her
dismissal. In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an
election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister
will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favour
with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary
democracies, extra elections are virtually never held, a minority
government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An
important feature of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the
"loyal opposition". The essence of the concept is that the second
largest political party (or coalition) opposes the governing party (or
coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its democratic
principles.PresidentialPresidential Democracy is a system where the
public elects the president through free and fair elections. The
president serves as both the head of state and head of government
controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a
specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. Elections typically
have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct
control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet
members.The president cannot be easily removed from office by the
legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative
branch any more easily. This provides some measure of separation of
powers. In consequence, however, the president and the legislature may
end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the
other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state.
This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common
outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia.A
semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the
government includes both a prime minister and a president. The
particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by
country.Hybrid or semi-directSome modern democracies that are
predominantly representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of
political action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which
combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are
termed hybrid democracies, semi-direct democracies or participatory
democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U.S. states, where
frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.The Swiss
confederation is a semi-direct democracy. At the federal level, citizens
can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or
ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament.
Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to
answer 103 questions (during the same period, French citizens
participated in only two referendums). Although in the past 120 years
less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has
been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put
before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the
initiative rewritten by government.In the United States, no mechanisms
of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the
states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored ballot
initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or
"propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums.
Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of
California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.In New
England, Town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to
manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with
a local direct democracy and a representative state government. For
example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which
town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted
on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political
matters.VariantsConstitutional monarchyMany countries such as the United
Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries,
Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned powerful monarchs into constitutional
monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. For
example, in the predecessor states to the United Kingdom, constitutional
monarchy began to emerge and has continued uninterrupted since the
Glorious Revolution of 1688 and passage of the Bill of Rights 1689.In
other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic
system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy,
Greece and Egypt). An elected president, with or without significant
powers, became the head of state in these countries.Elite upper houses
of legislatures, which often had lifetime or hereditary tenure, were
common in many nations. Over time, these either had their powers limited
(as with the British House of Lords) or else became elective and
remained powerful (as with the Australian Senate).RepublicThe term
republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a
representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a
president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a
hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are
representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of
government such as a prime minister.The Founding Fathers of the United
States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their
time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the
protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison
argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a
direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it
got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction,
whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats
faction by its very structure.What was critical to American values, John
Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which
the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin
Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked
him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He
replied "A republic—if you can keep it."Liberal democracyA liberal
democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the
elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to
the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise
the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which
places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of
the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see
civil liberties).In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some
large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that
citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their
feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal
government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with
formal government elsewhere.SocialistSocialist thought has several
different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism,
and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through
Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and
social democrats believe in a form of participatory, industrial,
economic and/or workplace democracy combined with a representative
democracy.Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is
commonly called "liberal democracy", which is simply referred to as
parliamentary democracy because of its often centralised nature. Because
of orthodox Marxists' desire to eliminate the political elitism they see
in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct
democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes
called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council
democracy and begins with workplace democracy.Democracy cannot consist
solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by
rich landowners and professional politicians.AnarchistAnarchists are
split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a
majority-rule is tyrannic or not. To many anarchists, the only form of
democracy considered acceptable is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one
in which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on the
minority, even when unanimous. However, anarcho-communist Murray
Bookchin criticised individualist anarchists for opposing democracy, and
says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.Some
anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy,
feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt-in favour of a
non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's
position on direct democracy. Henry David Thoreau, who did not
self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government" and
is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should
not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no
consent.SortitionSometimes called "democracy without elections",
sortition chooses decision makers via a random process. The intention is
that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests
of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected
official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and
Renaissance Florence and is still used in modern jury
selection.ConsociationalA consociational democracy allows for
simultaneous majority votes in two or more ethno-religious
constituencies, and policies are enacted only if they gain majority
support from both or all of them.Consensus democracyA consensus
democracy, in contrast, would not be dichotomous. Instead, decisions
would be based on a multi-option approach, and policies would be enacted
if they gained sufficient support, either in a purely verbal agreement
or via a consensus vote—a multi-option preference vote. If the threshold
of support were at a sufficiently high level, minorities would be as it
were protected automatically. Furthermore, any voting would be
ethno-colour blind.SupranationalQualified majority voting is designed by
the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in
the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member
states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in
favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of
representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be
appointed rather than directly elected.InclusiveInclusive democracy is a
political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in
all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of
face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a
stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social
realm, i.e. self-management in places of work and education, and
ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The
theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of
political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive
Democracy" and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature
and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy.The
basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic
assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given
geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding
villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy
today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on
a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are
elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various
demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one
of policy-making like that of representatives in representative
democracy.The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen
body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker. Authority can be
delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties,
for example, to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and
confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a
rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates
to regional and confederal bodies should have specific
mandates.Participatory politicsA Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a
theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council
structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision
making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the
decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely autonomous on
issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to
higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that
affect only the population affected by that council.A council court of
randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of the
majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates
may vote differently from how their sending council might wish but are
mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates
are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via
votes of most lower-level councils, however, not everything is a
referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant
to work in tandem with a participatory economy.CosmopolitanCosmopolitan
democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism, is a
political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale,
either directly or through representatives. An important justification
for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or
regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who,
by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy,
the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in
them.According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems
is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general
principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the
values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the
non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond
the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require
reforming existing international organisations, e.g. the United Nations,
as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament,
which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in,
international politics.Cosmopolitan Democracy has been promoted, among
others, by physicist Albert Einstein, writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist
George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi. The
creation of the International Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major
step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan
democracy.Creative democracyCreative Democracy is advocated by American
philosopher John Dewey. The main idea about Creative Democracy is that
democracy encourages individual capacity building and the interaction
among the society. Dewey argues that democracy is a way of life in his
work of "Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us" and an experience built
on faith in human nature, faith in human beings, and faith in working
with others. Democracy, in Dewey's view, is a moral ideal requiring
actual effort and work by people; it is not an institutional concept
that exists outside of ourselves. "The task of democracy", Dewey
concludes, "is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane
experience in which all share and to which all contribute".Guided
democracyGuided democracy is a form of democracy which incorporates
regular popular elections, but which often carefully "guides" the
choices offered to the electorate in a manner which may reduce the
ability of the electorate to truly determine the type of government
exercised over them. Such democracies typically have only one central
authority which is often not subject to meaningful public review by any
other governmental authority. Russian-style democracy has often been
referred to as a "Guided democracy." Russian politicians have referred
to their government as having only one center of power/ authority, as
opposed to most other forms of democracy which usually attempt to
incorporate two or more naturally competing sources of authority within
the same government.Non-governmental democracyAside from the public
sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and
representation have been used to govern other kinds of groups. Many
non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.
Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections.
Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the principle of one
share, one vote—sometimes supplemented by workplace democracy. Amitai
Etzioni has postulated a system that fuses elements of democracy with
sharia law, termed islamocracy.TheoryAristotleAristotle contrasted rule
by the many (democracy/timocracy), with rule by the few
(oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or
today autocracy/absolute monarchy). He also thought that there was a
good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the
degenerate counterpart to timocracy).For Aristotle, the underlying
principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy can the
citizens have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is
what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of
freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal
according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one
pleases.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 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.Early Republican
theoryA common view among early and renaissance Republican theorists was
that democracy could only survive in small political communities.
Heeding the lessons of the Roman Republic's shift to monarchism as it
grew larger, these Republican theorists held that the expansion of
territory and population inevitably led to tyranny. Democracy was
therefore highly fragile and rare historically, as it could only survive
in small political units, which due to their size were vulnerable to
conquest by larger political units. Montesquieu famously said, "if a
republic is small, it is destroyed by an outside force; if it is large,
it is destroyed by an internal vice." Rousseau asserted, "It is,
therefore the natural property of small states to be governed as a
republic, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch, and of large
empires to be swayed by a despotic prince."RationaleAmong modern
political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of the
fundamental rationale for democracy: aggregative democracy, deliberative
democracy, and radical democracy.AggregativeThe theory of aggregative
democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit
citizens' preferences and aggregate them together to determine what
social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view
hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting,
where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.Different variants
of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism, democracy is a system
of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders
the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist
conception, citizens cannot and should not "rule" because, for example,
on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their
views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most
famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Contemporary
proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski,
Richard Posner.According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other
hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives,
on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied
reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in
itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation
can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule
themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.Governments
will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of
the median voter—with half to their left and the other half to their
right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of
self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing
for votes. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are
necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and
governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic
Theory of Democracy.Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental
democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective
decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have
his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all
people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the
term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set
of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such
democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular
occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select
representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the
society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full
democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.
Similarly, Ronald Dworkin argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a
merely procedural, ideal."DeliberativeDeliberative democracy is based on
the notion that democracy is government by deliberation. Unlike
aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a
democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic
deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in
voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers
that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power
a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of
interest groups. If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after
authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal
using a form of majority rule.RadicalRadical democracy is based on the
idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that
exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge
those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in
decision-making processes.CriticismInefficienciesSome economists have
criticized the efficiency of democracy, citing the premise of the
irrational voter, or a voter who makes decisions without all of the
facts or necessary information in order to make a truly informed
decision. Another argument is that democracy slows down processes
because of the amount of input and participation needed in order to go
forward with a decision. A common example often quoted to substantiate
this point is the high economic development achieved by China (a
non-democratic country) as compared to India (a democratic country).
According to economists, the lack of democratic participation in
countries like China allows for unfettered economic growth.On the other
hand, Socrates believed that democracy without educated masses (educated
in the more broader sense of being knowledgeable and responsible) would
only lead to populism being the criteria to become an elected leader and
not competence. This would ultimately lead to a demise of the nation.
This was quoted by Plato in book 10 of The Republic, in Socrates'
conversation with Adimantus. Socrates was of the opinion that the right
to vote must not be an indiscriminate right (for example by birth or
citizenship), but must be given only to people who thought sufficiently
of their choice.Popular rule as a façadeThe 20th-century Italian
thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that
democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite
rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of
human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as
opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that
democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of
power from oppression to manipulation. As Louis Brandeis once professed,
"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands
of a few, but we can't have both.". British writer Ivo Mosley, grandson
of blackshirt Oswald Mosley describes in In the Name of the People:
Pseudo-Democracy and the Spoiling of Our World, how and why current
forms of electoral governance are destined to fall short of their
promise.A study led by Princeton professor Martin Gilens of 1,779 U.S.
government decisions concluded that"elites and organized groups
representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest
groups have little or no independent influence."Mob rulePlato's The
Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of
Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of
variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and
unequaled alike." In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from
best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious
critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only
Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the
wisest men), is a just form of government.James Madison critiqued direct
democracy (which he referred to simply as "democracy") in Federalist No.
10, arguing that representative democracy—which he described using the
term "republic"—is a preferable form of government, saying: "...
democracies 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." Madison offered that republics were
superior to democracies because republics safeguarded against tyranny of
the majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a
republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is
enjoyed by a large over a small republic".Political instabilityMore
recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political
stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends
to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both
domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains
power, vociferous, headline-grabbing protests and harsh criticism from
the popular media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political
change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration
are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this
reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is
undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the
reduction of poverty are top priorities.This opportunist alliance not
only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically
opposing factions, but it is usually short-lived since any perceived or
actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to
leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result
in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the
government.Biased media has been accused of causing political
instability, resulting in the obstruction of democracy, rather than its
promotion.Fraudulent electionsIn representative democracies, it may not
benefit incumbents to conduct fair elections. A study showed that
incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5 times as long as those
who permit fair elections. Democracies in countries with high per capita
income have been found to be less prone to violence, but in countries
with low incomes the tendency is the reverse. Election misconduct is
more likely in countries with low per capita incomes, small populations,
rich in natural resources, and a lack of institutional checks and
balances. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to
fall into that category.Governments that have frequent elections tend to
have significantly more stable economic policies than those governments
who have infrequent elections. However, this trend does not apply to
governments where fraudulent elections are common.OppositionDemocracy in
modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously
existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from social
elites. The implementation of a democratic government within a
non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic
revolution.DevelopmentSeveral philosophers and researchers have outlined
historical and social factors seen as supporting the evolution of
democracy.Other commentators have mentioned the influence of economic
development. In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that
improved living-standards in modern developed countries can convince
people that they can take their basic survival for granted, leading to
increased emphasis on self-expression values, which correlates closely
with democracy.Douglas M. Gibler and Andrew Owsiak in their study argued
about the importance of peace and stable borders for the development of
democracy. It has often been assumed that democracy causes peace, but
this study shows that, historically, peace has almost always predated
the establishment of democracy.Carroll Quigley concludes that the
characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:
Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons
available are easy for individuals to obtain and use. By the 1800s, guns
were the best personal weapons available, and in the United States of
America (already nominally democratic), almost everyone could afford to
buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments
couldn't do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen
soldiers with guns. Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the
citizen soldier and democracy.Other theories stressed the relevance of
education and of human capital—and within them of cognitive ability to
increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation.
Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished:a
cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better
information-processing)an ethical effect (support of democratic values,
freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on
intelligence.Evidence consistent with conventional theories of why
democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Statistical
analyses have challenged modernisation theory by demonstrating that
there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more
likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less
unequal. Neither is there convincing evidence that increased reliance on
oil revenues prevents democratisation, despite a vast theoretical
literature on "the Resource Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever
the link between citizen taxation and government accountability, seen as
the key to representative democracy. The lack of evidence for these
conventional theories of democratisation have led researchers to search
for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be
they geographical or demographic. More inclusive institutions lead to
democracy because as people gain more power, they are able to demand
more from the elites, who in turn have to concede more things to keep
their position. This virtuous circle may end up in democracy.An example
of this is the disease environment. Places with different mortality
rates had different populations and productivity levels around the
world. For example, in Africa, the tsetse fly—which afflicts humans and
livestock—reduced the ability of Africans to plow the land. This made
Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was less
concentrated. This also affected the colonial institutions European
countries established in Africa. Whether colonial settlers could live or
not in a place made them develop different institutions which led to
different economic and social paths. This also affected the distribution
of power and the collective actions people could take. As a result, some
African countries ended up having democracies and others autocracies.An
example of geographical determinants for democracy is having access to
coastal areas and rivers. This natural endowment has a positive relation
with economic development thanks to the benefits of trade. Trade brought
economic development, which in turn, broadened power. Rulers wanting to
increase revenues had to protect property-rights to create incentives
for people to invest. As more people had more power, more concessions
had to be made by the ruler and in many places this process lead to
democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society
moving the balance of political power.In the 21st century, democracy has
become such a popular method of reaching decisions that its application
beyond politics to other areas such as entertainment, food and fashion,
consumerism, urban planning, education, art, literature, science and
theology has been criticised as "the reigning dogma of our time". The
argument suggests that applying a populist or market-driven approach to
art and literature (for example), means that innovative creative work
goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the argument is that
essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, as a
truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the
correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote. However, more
recently, theorists have also advanced the concept epistemic democracy
to assert that democracy actually does a good job tracking the
truth.Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully
realised, democracy may be developed automatically in the act of
striving for democracy:The peasant in the fable, when on his death-bed,
tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old
man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure.
They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and
secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the fable may
well symbolise democracy.Dr. Harald Wydra, in his book Communism and The
Emergence of Democracy (2007), maintains that the development of
democracy should not be viewed as a purely procedural or as a static
concept but rather as an ongoing "process of meaning formation". Drawing
on Claude Lefort's idea of the empty place of power, that "power
emanates from the people [...] but is the power of nobody", he remarks
that democracy is reverence to a symbolic mythical authority—as in
reality, there is no such thing as the people or demos. Democratic
political figures are not supreme rulers but rather temporary guardians
of an empty place. Any claim to substance such as the collective good,
the public interest or the will of the nation is subject to the
competitive struggle and times of for gaining the authority of office
and government. The essence of the democratic system is an empty place,
void of real people, which can only be temporarily filled and never be
appropriated. The seat of power is there but remains open to constant
change. As such, people's definitions of "democracy" or of "democratic"
progress throughout history as a continual and potentially never-ending
process of social construction.
