Você está na página 1de 44

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

legitimacy because they have the consent of the people they govern. The two main criteria for a
democracy are, firstly that the officials exercising power have legitimate authority because they have been
elected, as opposed to inheriting that authority or holding it by force; and secondly, the mechanism for
changing the government is through peaceful and regular elections, as opposed to revolts, coups, or civil
war. Democracy is not a theory about what the aims or content of government or law should be, only that
those aims should be guided by the opinion of the majority, as opposed to a single ruler (as with an
absolute monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy). Just because a government has been democratically
elected does not mean it will be a good, just, or competent government. Thus, some polities have used
the democratic process to secure liberty while others have used it to promote equality, nationalism, or
other values.

Democracy is also a peaceful way for a group of any size to settle arguments or make decisions.
Everyone has a vote and is committed to respecting the decision that wins. This does not mean the
decision will be the best one, or even a good one. It is simply a mechanism for enabling everyone to be
involved in the decision making process, which gives the decisions binding legitimacy.

Most of the procedures used by modern democracies are very old. Almost all cultures have at some time
had their new leaders approved, or at least accepted, by the people; and have changed the laws only
after consultation with the assembly of the people or their leaders. Such institutions existed since before
written records, as well as being referred to in ancient texts, and modern democracies are often derived
or inspired by them.

Democracy in the modern world evolved in Britain and France and then spread to other nations. The main
reason for the development of democracy was a dissatisfaction with the corruption, incompetence, abuse
of power, and lack of accountability of the existing polity, which was often an absolute monarchy whose
legitimacy was based on the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Instead of defending their country, kings
were often engaging in ruinously expensive wars against other countries. Instead of using their power to
enforce the rule of law and justice, they were often using this power to oppress their subjects and stifle
opposition. People thought that if they could have a say in how they were governed, these abuses could
come to an end.

There is a tension in democracy between the rule of law limiting government and protecting individual
liberties, and the rule of the people being able to override individual liberties. In modern history this has
led to two competing versions of democracy. One emphasizes the purpose of the whole, but when it
became atheistic has tended to slip into totalitarianism and the suppression of individual liberty. The other
emphasizes individual liberty, but with the decline of its Christian underpinnings has tended to slide into
social disintegration.

1
There are many different types of democracy, from the minimalist direct democracy of Switzerland to the
totalitarian democracy of communist states such as North Korea, as well as mixed systems such as the
blending of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy in the United Kingdom. As democracy is now regarded
by many as the highest, or even only, form of legitimate authority, many states claim to be democratic
even if they do not appear to be. One of the most damaging accusations in today's international arena is
that a group or process is "undemocratic." In the Islamic world, there are democracies such
as Turkey, Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan, although there are also Muslims who believe democracy is un-
Islamic. Though the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are
also applicable to other groups and organizations.

In the past, philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas and Hobbes have considered
democracy to be among the worst forms of government because it could easily be corrupted and result in
injustice. The chief danger is that a majority can impose its will upon a minority in a way that violates their
liberties. Thus during the twentieth century, besides liberal democracies, there were also dictators such
as Hitler who came to power through the democratic process and totalitarian democracies like the Soviet
Union, where the populace gave strong support to the regime at various times.

To function properly, democracies require a high level of education and maturity among the people who
vote. If not, the process can be captured by demagogues if too many vote in a self-centered way, as
happened in Wiemar Germany. It can also be very claustrophobic or oppressive as majorities can use
their position to intimidate minority opinions. Modern democracy has benefited from the mass education
of citizens, the free press, and most especially the Protestant Reformation, which encouraged self-
restraint and public-mindedness and trained people in self-government.

History of democracy
Classical Greek democracy
The word "democracy" derives from the ancient Greek demokratia (δημοκρατία). It combines the
elements demos (which means "people") and kratos ("force, power"). Kratos is an unexpectedly brutish
word. In the words "monarchy" and "oligarchy," the second element, "arche," means rule, leading, or
being first. The Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens (comprising the central
city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica). Athens was one of the very first known
democracies and probably the most important in ancient times. Every adult male citizen was by right a
member of the Assembly and had a duty to participate and vote on legislation and executive bills. The
officials of the democracy were elected by lot, except generals (strategoi) and financial officials, who were
elected by the Assembly. Election was seen as less democratic and open to corruption because it would
favor the rich (who could buy votes) and the eloquent, whereas a lottery gave everyone an equal chance
to participate and experience, in Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn" (Politics 1317b28–30).

2
Participation was not open to all the inhabitants of Attica, but the in-group of participants was constituted
with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. Never
before had so many people spent so much of their time in governing themselves. However, they only had
the time to do this because of the huge number of slaves that underpinned the Athenian economy.
Political rights and citizenship were not granted to women, slaves, or metics (aliens). Of the 250-300,000
inhabitants, about one third were from citizen families and about 30,000 were citizens. Of those 30,000
perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly.

Athenian polity was an expression of its philosophy. One of the distinguishing features of ancient Greece
was its lack of a priestly class who would mediate between the people and the gods and also be channels
of the divine laws and will. Instead, the philosopher Aristotle summed the humanistic Greek view up in his
definition of human beings as "political or social animals," or as another philosopher put it, "man is the
measure of all things." Men could only live perfect and self-sufficient lives if they became active citizens,
knowing how to rule and be ruled by participating fully in the life of the state. Thus, for Athenians, making
laws and arguing about policy was their duty and right. This contrasts with a religiously based culture
where it is the gods who make or hand down the laws and human beings do not have the authority to
make or change these laws. So individual citizens of Athens had the right to take the initiative: to stand to
speak in the assembly, to initiate a public law suit (that is, one held to affect the political community as a
whole), to propose a law before the lawmakers, or to approach the council with suggestions.

There were many critics of Athenian democracy and twice it suffered coups. For example in 406 B.C.E., the
Athenians won a naval victory over the Spartans. After the battle, a storm arose and the eight generals in
command failed to collect survivors: The Athenians sentenced all of them to death. Technically, it was
illegal, as the generals were tried and sentenced together, rather than one by one as Athenian law
required. Socrates happened to be the citizen presiding over the assembly that day. He refused to
cooperate, objecting to the idea that the people should be able to ignore the laws and do whatever they
wanted just because they were in the majority.

This tension in democracy between the rule of law, limiting government and protecting individual liberties,
and the rule of the people, being able to override individual liberties, resurfaced in modern history with two
competing versions of democracy.

Middle Ages
Most parts of Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords during the Middle Ages. However, the growth of
centers of commerce and city-states led to great experimentation in non-feudal forms of government.
Many cities elected mayors or burghers. There were various systems involving elections or assemblies,
although often only involving a minority of the population. Such city states, particularly on the Italian

3
peninsula, often allowed greater freedom for science and the arts, and theRenaissance blossomed in this
environment, helping to create conditions for the re-emergence of democracy.

One of the most significant influences on the development of democracy was Protestantism. The
hierarchical Roman Catholic Church supported absolute monarchy and was a powerful opponent of
democracy and liberalism. The fragmentation and restructuring of Christianity that accompanied the
Reformation enabled groups of Christians in some countries to experiment and set up their own
congregations based on different ecclesiologies, such as Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. These
arguments and discussions over church polity spilled over into politics and influenced the development of
democracy.

Instances of democracy that have been cited include Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states (such as Venice), the tuatha
system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries, Scandinavian Things, and the
autonomous merchant city of Sakai in sixteenth century Japan. However, few of these have an unbroken
history into the modern period—an exception being the Althing, which lays claim to being the oldest
parliament in the world. Furthermore participation in many of these post-feudal governments was often
restricted to the aristocracy.

Liberal democracy
The development of democracy in England

The origin of the modern liberal democracy that has expanded so rapidly in the past century lies in the
evolution of English political institutions. The government of the English in the tenth century, before the
Norman conquest and the imposition of feudalism, was derived from the customs of the Germanic tribes
who invaded and settled in England during the fifth century. The English were a nation of freeholders
living in homesteads. A group of these homesteads formed a village which had an assembly, the village-
moot presided over by the village-reeve. A hundred or so of such villages constituted a Hundred, which
also had a meeting presided over by an elder where they managed their own affairs. A number of
hundreds formed a shire, presided over by an earldorman appointed by the King and Witan. The kingdom
made up of these shires was ruled by the Witenagemot and the King. The Witenagemot was the "Meeting
of the Wise Men," who could elect and depose the King, decide questions of war and peace, make and
amend the laws, confirm the appointment of bishops and earldormen and settle disputes. The King was
greatly respected but could not alter the law, levy a tax, or make a grant of land without the consent of the
Witenagemot.

The English system of government worked from the bottom upwards, from the freeman to the King, every
person holding his own land as his right, choosing his own earldorman who in turn helped to choose the
King. The law was customary law, which formed the basis of Common Law, a body of general rules

4
prescribing social conduct. It was characterized by trial by jury and by the doctrine of the supremacy of
law. The law was not made, but discovered as revealed in the traditional life and practices of the
community. It was thought of as God's law which had been handed down through custom from generation
to generation. Thus no one had the authority to unilaterally go against the wisdom of the past generations
and make new law.

In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England and imposed the feudal system, which worked from the
top down. The King owned all the land and gave it to his knights, earls, and barons. In this way he
gathered up, and concentrated in himself, the whole power of the state. Subsequent English history has
been a long struggle to reassert the Anglo-saxon principles of government against this imposed
feudalism.

English parliament in front of the king c. 1300

Some landmarks in this not always progressive struggle were:

 The attempt to bring the Church under the law of the land so that priests who committed murder
could be punished with theConstitutions of Clarendon (1164);
 The confirmation of trial by jury (1166);
 Magna Carta, issued by King John under pressure from the barons led by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, which restated the ancient principle that no person should be imprisoned but by the
judgment of his equals and by the law of the land (1215);
 The Provisions of Oxford which demanded that there should be three Parliaments a year and that
the King could not act without the authority of his appointed advisers (1258);
 The first House of Commons summoned by Simon de Montefort with representatives from all
classes of the kingdom (1265);

5
 The First Complete Parliament (1297) summoned by Edward I on the principle that, "it was right
that what concerned all, should be approved by all," which passed the statute that there was to be no
taxation without the consent of the realm;
 The right of the Commons to impeach any servant of the Crown who had done wrong (1376) and
the necessity that the two Houses of Parliament should concur for the law to be changed;
 The abolition of the authority of the Pope in England (1534);
 The growth of non-conformity that accompanied the Reformation popularized the idea that a
congregation should be able to elect its own minister—these expressions of democracy in the
churches spread to the political realm;
 The declaration by the Commons that their privileges were not the gift of the Crown, but the
natural birthright of Englishmen, that they could discuss matters of public interest and that they had
the right to liberty of speech (1621);
 The Petition of Right (1628) which demanded that no man could be taxed without consent of
Parliament;
 The National Covenant (1637) signed in Scotland to resist the imposition of Popery and
Episcopacy;
 The abolition of the Star Chamber (1640) which dispensed arbitrary justice;
 The English Civil War, which arose because of the arbitrary government of Charles I, who tried to
rule without Parliament, and the extraordinary amount of religious freedom and outpouring of
spirituality at this time;
 The Habeas Corpus Act (1679) restated the ancient principle that indefinite and illegal
imprisonment was unlawful;
 The Glorious Revolution in which William of Orange was invited to defend the rights and liberties
of the people of England from James II, who wanted to rule absolutely and impose Catholicism on the
country;
 The Toleration Act (1689) allowing freedom of worship to all Protestants;
 The Declaration of Right (1689) that declared illegal the pretended power to suspend or dispense
the law;
 The expansion of the franchise in England in the mid-nineteenth century through the Reform Acts
(1832, 1867);
 Ballot Act (1872), which introduced secret ballots;
 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act (1883), which set limits on campaign spending;
 Representation of the People Act (1918), which gave the vote to all men and women over the age
of 30.

6
 Universal suffrage and political equality of men and women (1928).

However, with the expansion of the franchise came the expansion of government, as politicians made
promises to the electorate so as to win votes and be elected. These policies could only be delivered
through greatly increased public expenditure financed through increases in taxation. This has led to a
gradual but significant loss of freedom as governments have used their democratic mandate to engage in
social engineering, retrospective legislation, and the confiscation of property in a manner reminiscent of
the Greek abuses that Socrates railed against. It is now commonly thought that the will of a
democratically elected government should not be constrained, because this would be undemocratic,
whereas the whole raison d'etre of democracy was to preserve and not to justify the destruction of liberty.
[1]

Democracy in the United States

A significant further development of democracy occurred with the establishment of the United States. The
political principles of liberal democracy that were worked out over the centuries in England and articulated
by the philosophers Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu were inherited by the United States and embodied in
its Constitution. Having a constitution that described functions and limited the political institutions was a
novel innovation. The founding fathers who framed the Constitution wanted to establish institutions that
could preserve liberty and prevent the excessive growth of government, which was seen as the chief
threat to liberty. So the United States Constitution set down the framework for government with checks
and balances based on the separation of powers, so that no institution or person would have absolute
power. To further limit the reach of government and protect people's liberties, the founding fathers
produced a Bill of Rights, a series of amendments to the Constitution. It was adopted in 1788, and
provided for an elected government through representatives, and it protected the civil rights and liberties
of all except slaves. This exception came to haunt the new republic. Although not described as a
"democracy" by its founding fathers, today it is the model many people aspire too.

The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond.
Following the American Civil War, in 1868, newly freed slaves, in the case of men, were granted the right
to vote under the passage of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Women's
suffrage was finally achieved in the 1920s with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution states that the power comes from the people: "We the people…." However, unlike a
pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens in the U.S. are only governed by the majority of the
people within the limits prescribed by the rule of law.[2] Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to
diminish the threat of mobocracy, thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by
placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. Thomas Jefferson stated that majority
rights cannot exist if individual rights do not.[3] The power of the majority of the people is checked by

7
limiting that power to electing representatives, who then govern within limits of overarching constitutional
law, rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right.[4]Moreover,
the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual having
legislative, judicial, and executive powers, so that basic constitutional law is extremely difficult to
change. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[5]

The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights.
They kept what they believed were the best elements of previous forms of government. But they were
mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered
federal structure. Inalienable rights refers to a set of human rights that are not awarded by human power,
and, thus, cannot be surrendered.[6]
The values of Anglo-American democracy

The main theme running through this political evolution is that the impetus for greater democracy was the
desire to establish the rule of law so as to preserve and expand freedom—the freedom of religion and
speech, freedom of association, movement and trade, and secure ownership of property. Hence, the
name "liberal" democracy. To guarantee this, the importance of a separation of powers, or functions,
came to be recognized with a separate executive, legislative, and judiciary. It was thought that a
democratically accountable legislature and independent judiciary was the best way to prevent a king or
imperious chief executive from misusing his position and acting arbitrarily.

The underlying values and culture that underpin Anglo-American democracy are, first, the value of the
individual. Great Britain, and its offspring America, developed an exaggerated sense of the value of the
individual as compared to other countries, which can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period.[7] This
individualism was grounded in the nuclear family structure, which valued liberty above other values such
as equality and authority.[8] This was reinforced by English religion, which was a
notoriouslyPelagian version of Christianity that also emphasized freedom and
responsibility. Protestantism, especially its evangelical version with its emphasis on individual salvation
and the love that God has for each individual soul, reinforced this respect for the individual, and his or her
rights and responsibilities. Subsequent major and minor British political philosophers such
as Locke, Hume, J.S. Mill, and Toland, have all supported individual liberty against the state and the
majority.

A second value in Anglo-American democracy is respect for tradition and custom as the source of the
authority for morality and the law.[9] Medieval English philosophy had a tendency towards nominalism,
which made it hard to imagine, and thus believe, in the existence of abstract constructs such as the state.
And modern British and American philosophy has been strongly empirical, valuing experience over
abstract reason. As David Hume said, "the rules of morality are not conclusions of our reason."

8
Experience reveals that the world people is very complex, full of idiosyncrasies, and that social institutions
are the product of human actions but not conscious human design.

Thirdly, Anglo-American individualism traditionally had a strong Christian component, such that people
naturally tended to be public minded. Many voluntary societies and charities were formed and freely given
public service was common. The French observer Alexis de Tocqueville in his famous work, Democracy
in America (1835), is famously to have said that he found the strength of America in her churches and
voluntary societies, which gave individuals the organizational strength to exercise their liberties according
to their various opinions.

Democracy in France and its totalitarian offshoots


Democracy, when it developed on the continent of Europe, took a very different turn. In the Middle
Ages most European countries had modernized by adoptingJustinian's legal code, which gave the
authority for creating law to the ruler. Throughout the Middle Ages, continental monarchies had been very
powerful, with the unchecked authority to lead their countries into ruinous and destructive wars. They had
this power because large armies were necessary for defense, as there are few natural barriers on the
continent and most countries had several neighbors with whom there would be disputes over territory. So
loyalty and service of the whole has always tended to be more important than individual freedom. So in
the modern era, the most progressive monarchs were enlightened despots. They were often followed by
dictators. The idea that the state should have this authority was not challenged.
The development of democracy in France

In theory, France was an absolute monarchy in which the king was the source of all laws and
administrative authority. In practice, the monarch was hedged in by a medieval constitution which he
could not change without the risk of undermining the entire structure. The French state in the 1780s, was
on the brink of bankruptcy due to an ancient, inequitable, and inadequate tax base, as well as over
spending on wars with Britain. There were many other economic and social problems the monarchy was
unable to solve. This led to a widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for change. To
break the deadlock, King Louis XVI called the Estates General, whose status and authority was very
unclear, to meet for the first time since 1614. The forces that were unleashed soon resulted in the
collapse of royal authority and social order. The Estates General turned itself into a National Assembly in
1789 and abrogated to itself the national sovereignty and gave itself the right to create a new constitution.
The Assembly swept aside the past, publishing the Constitution of 1791 which revolutionized the whole
social and political structure of France.[10] Feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism were
abolished and society was rationally reorganized on an individualist and secular basis. Many of these
changes, such as legal equality and the abolition of feudal dues were welcomed by the general
population. However, by claiming the authority to remake society, disregarding all previous laws and

9
institutions, the door was opened for one person or group after another to impose their vision or ideals on
the country in an almost permanent revolution.

The Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen was published guaranteeing legal equality; the
separation of Church and State and religious toleration came in 1791. Many of these changes were
welcomed with few regretting the end of theocratic monarchy. Many of those who did fled the country. In
the winter of 1791, the Assembly considered legislation against such émigrés. They debated and voted
for the safety of the State against the liberty of individuals to leave. In 1792, another assembly called the
Convention drew up a republican constitution, the Constitution of the Year I, and voted to execute the
king. People opposed to the revolution were arrested and executed in the Terror that followed. The
revolution became increasingly radical and atheistic and there was a campaign of dechristianization in
1794. An altar to the Cult of Reason replaced the Christian one in Notre Dame and many priests were
martyred. In 1795, the Convention approved the new Constitution of the Year III which was later ratified in
a plebiscite. The new constitution created the Directoire (Directorate) and the first bicameral legislature in
French history. This should have been followed by elections, but the members of the Convention wanted
to hang on to their positions because they thought they knew better than anyone else what was best for
the country and so disregarded the constitution. The impasse was broken in 1799, when Napoleon
Bonaparte staged the coup which installed the Consulate. This effectively led to his dictatorship and
eventually (in 1804), to his proclamation as Emperor, which brought to a close the First Republic. There
followed 150 years of instability—periods of republic, monarchy, and empire—culminating in the
establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958.
The values of Gallic democracy

The rationalism of the French Enlightenment provided the foundational values of the French
Revolution and the type of democracies that developed from it. Idealistic thinkers assumed that a model
society could be designed on rational principles and then implemented. Reason, like geometry, has a
tendency to assert that there is one right answer. The Enlightenment was also deeply anti-clerical; it was
led by Voltaire (1694–1778), who spent much of his time ridiculing religion and things that were old.
Eventually it turned atheistic, as the French religious establishment was unable to intellectually refute the
more extreme deist ideas that had been imported from England.

The leading political philosopher in France was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). His conception of
the ideal polity was very illiberal. He thought that in an idealized state of nature, people were born pure
but had been corrupted and enslaved by civilization and institutions such as private property. To change
this, he advocated a new corrective social contract as a blueprint through which a proper society could be
built. To begin this, everyone in the society would subscribe to a new social contract. In order to be free,
every individual had to surrender his rights to a collective body and obey the general will. The state is

10
vested with total power, which is legitimate because it has the consent of the majority. The general will, by
definition, is always right and reflects the real interests of every member of society. So anyone who
disagrees with the general will is mistaken and acting contrary to his own best interests. It is the ruler's
responsibility to correct him and force him to act for his own benefit. What is supremely important is the
whole, of which an individual is merely an expendable a part.[11]

Rousseau didn't agree with the idea of private property. He thought it was the source of social ills, tending
to corrupt people and destroy their character. He regarded the man without property (the noble savage,
for example) to be the freest. Instead, he thought that nearly all property should be owned by the state.
Rousseau also recognized the importance of education and maintained that the state should control it, so
as to be able to indoctrinate children into the values of the state. Although Rousseau was not a supporter
of democracy—he preferred aristocracy—his ideas affected the course of the French revolution and
subsequent democracy.

One impetus behind French democracy was the desire to seize the power of the state and use it to
remodel society on a rationalistic basis. The vision was of a country organized and united to achieve a
common purpose. As long as the government was based on popular sovereignty it had the power and
authority to make any laws. This innovation was very attractive to others who wished to change and
modernize society, and became a basic value of democracies throughout Europe. Being rationalistic, the
supporters of the French Revolution thought its principles were universal and could, even should, be
adopted by others. However, such democracies tended to become totalitarian.[12]

One of the key values of French democracy which is also shared by socialism and communism is
equality. Not equality before the law so much as people having equal lifestyles—having the same amount
of living space and the same income. But such equality, which has been called the Procrustean equality,
is incompatible with freedom. If people are free, they can make choices which have different outcomes,
which leads quickly to inequality. For example, even if people earn the same amount of money they may
prioritize and spend it differently—one person on food and luxuries, another on travel, another on a larger
home, another on children's education, another on drink and drugs; another invests it and engages in
commerce, and another saves it and passes it to his or her children. So the only way to achieve equality
is to take away people's freedom to make such choices.

The principles of French democracy were eagerly embraced by other idealistic revolutionaries throughout
Europe. The historian François Furet in his work, The Passing of an Illusion[13] explores in detail the
similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917, more than a century
later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. This model was attractive
to Marxists, as it justified a small group who thought they knew what was best for the people; a group
claiming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat," seizing power in the name of the people, and using that

11
power to compel the people to fit into the new ideal economic and social order. People who resisted or
disagreed were to be sent to re-education camps or executed. This was not uncommon in the communist
democracies established by the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and elsewhere. These
countries are one-party states based on the principles of democratic centralism. They have a centrally
planned command economy and a powerful secret police to seek out and punish dissenters.

Global spread of democracy in the twentieth century

Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map displays the official self identification made by
world governments with regard to democracy, as of June 2006. It shows the de jure status of democracy in the
world.██ Governments self identified as democratic██ Governments not self identified as democratic.

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2007, which reports the state of world
freedom in 2006. It is one of the most widely used measures of democracy by researchers. Note that although these
measures (another is the Polity data described below) are highly correlated, this does not imply interchangeability.
[14]
██ Free.Freedom House considers these to be liberal democracies.[15]██ Partly Free██ Not Free

12
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the
period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005

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

The Economist's Democracy Index offers another measure of democracy. The palest blue countries get a score above 9,
while the black countries score below 2.

The rise of democracies in the twentieth century has come in successive "waves of democracy," variously
resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. Early in the century,
several countries that were part of the British Empire gradually gained their independence: Australia, New
Zealand, andCanada all became stable, liberal democracies modeled on the British parliamentary
system. South Africabecame a democracy, but with a franchise limited to white people. After World War
I the Allies, under pressure from Woodrow Wilson, decided with the Treaty of Versailles to break up
the Austro-Hungarian Empire into new nation states. Some, like Austria, established a democratic
system, while in others, such as Hungary, strong men came to power either to establish national unity or
to defend the country from predatory larger neighbors. Without either mature national identities or
democratic traditions to draw upon, they were all very unstable, mostly degenerating into nationalism.
The Ottoman Empire, too, was partitioned and different countries created and administered under League
of Nations mandates awarded to France, Britain, and Italy. The countries contained a mixture of ethnic,
national, and religious groups without a common identity, which made government very difficult. The
British, who administered Iraq, imposed a parliamentary constitution on the country along with a monarch.
However, the democratic roots were not very deep and there was a coup in 1958. In Russia, the absolute

13
monarchy of Tsarism was overthrown in the February Revolution of 1917. Although they did not have
widespread support, the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, seized power in a coup the following October.
They claimed to represent the "vanguard of the proleteriat" and the real interests of the people who,
because of "false consciousness" hadn't voted "correctly" in elections for the democratically elected All
Russian Constituent Assembly.

The Great Depression also brought disenchantment and instability, and in several European countries,
dictators and fascist parties came to power. They did so either by coups or by manipulating the
democratic system claiming to be able to solve problems which liberalism and democracy could not.
Dictatorships were established in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Baltic Republics, the
Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet
Union, this period has been called the "Age of Dictators."[16] Even in the United States Franklin D.
Roosevelt wielded much more power than previous presidents which coincided with a huge expansion of
government.

The aftermath of World War II brought a definite reversal of this trend in Western Europe and Japan. With
the support of the U.S. and UK, liberal democracies were established in all the liberated countries of
western Europe and the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany were democratized
too. However in most of Eastern Europe, socialist democracies were imposed by the Soviet Union where
only communist and communist associated parties were allowed to participate in elections. Membership
of these parties was restricted, which disenfranchised most of the population. The communist party
maintained itself in power by claiming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat," using intimidation and force
against "counter-revolutionaries." The Soviet sector of Germany became the German Democratic
Republic and was forced into the Soviet bloc.

The war was also followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had
democratic constitutions often based on the British parliamentary model. However, once elected, many
rulers held their power for decades by intimidating and imprisoning opponents. Elections, when they were
held, were often rigged so that the ruling party and president were re-elected. Following World War II,
most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a
general consensus among their electorates and political parties that the wealthy could be taxed to help
support the poor.

In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries as
industries were developed to provide goods for citizens. However, it later declined in the state-controlled,
command economies, where incentives for hard work and the freedom to innovate were lost. By 1960, the
vast majority ofnation-states called themselves democracies, although the majority of the world's
population lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge.

14
A subsequent wave of democratization saw new liberal democracies in several nations such as Spain and
Portugal. Some of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and
early 1980s as dictators were unable to pay the national debts accumulated during their rule due to theft
and the misuse of loans. This was followed by nations in East Asia and South Asia by the mid-to-late
1980s, that were becoming industrial producers.

In 1989, the Soviet Union, in effect, collapsed economically, ending the Cold War and discrediting
government-run economies. The former Eastern bloc countries had some memory of liberal democracy
and could reorganize more easily than Russia, which had been communist since 1917. The most
successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe,
and they quickly became members or candidate members of the European Union. Russia, however, had
its reforms impeded by a mafia and oligarchs that crippled new businesses, and the old party leaders took
personal ownership of Russia's outdated industries.

The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa,
whereapartheid was dismantled by the efforts of Nelson Mandela and F. W. DeKlerk. More recent
examples include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose
Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.

The Republic of India is currently the largest liberal democracy in the world.[17]

Forms of democracy
Forms of government
Part of the Politics series

List of forms of government

 Anarchism

 Aristocracy

 Authoritarianism

 Autocracy

 Communist state

 Democracy

Direct democracy

Representative democracy

 Despotism

15
 Dictatorship
 Fascism
 Feudalism
 Hierocracy
 Kleptocracy
 Kritarchy
 Krytocracy
 Meritocracy
 Monarchy

Absolute monarchy

Constitutional monarchy

 Ochlocracy

 Oligarchy

 Plutocracy

 Republic

Mixed government

Constitutional republic

Parliamentary republic

Socialist republic

Capitalist republic

 Single-party state

 Thalassocracy

 Theocracy

 Timocracy

 Totalitarianism

 Tyranny
Politics Portal

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

Representative democracy

16
Representative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election.
Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom
to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and
choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.

There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may
be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many
proportional systems.

Liberal democracy
Classical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy along with the protection of
minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name "liberal") of
speech, assembly, religion, and property.

Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are
liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal
democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.

Direct democracy
Direct democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws.
Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form
of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a
high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws
often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people
see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized,
with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language
speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking
majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.

Socialist democracy
Socialism, where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on
democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some
examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social
democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a
representative democracy.

Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic
centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired
government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists

17
often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative
democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in
rural communist China.

Anarchist democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which
historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is
recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] However,
anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and
says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.

Sortition
Sortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A
much noted classical example would be the ancient Atheniandemocracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of
qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process
would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the
problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.

Tribal and consensus democracy


Certain ethnic tribes organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus
democracy.[20] However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop
consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative
democracy seek consensus among the people.[21]

Theory
Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas
Plato criticized democracy for a number of reasons. He thought the people were often muddle-headed
and were not suited to choose the best leaders. Worse, democracy tends to favor bad leaders who gain
and maintain power by pandering to the people instead of telling them unpleasant truths or advocating
necessary but uncomfortable policies. Furthermore, in a democracy, people are allowed to do what they
like, which leads to diversity and later social disintegration. It leads to class conflict between the rich and
poor as the latter try to tax the former and redistribute their wealth. Morally, Plato said, democracy leads
to permissiveness. The end result, he argued, would be the rise of a tyrant to reimpose order.[22] When
one examines the way that many democracies in the modern world have turned out, one has to recognize
some merit in his arguments.

18
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and
with rule by a single person (tyranny/monarchy or today autocracy). He thought that there was a good and
a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[23] He
thought monarchy best for a very large state and democracy only feasible for a small community where
people knew each other.

Aquinas too taught that "the kingdom or monarch is the best form of government as long as it is not
corrupt." The next best form of government was aristocracy, understood as the government by the best,
and finally democracy, the government by the people. However, the best form of all, according to
Aquinas, is a blend of the three, taking into consideration the needs and the circumstances of each
society. A blend gives one the best of monarchy—a single person as a focal point for the loyalty of the
whole people, who can act as a final arbiter in disputes and who links the past, present, and future. But a
monarch can do little alone. An aristocracy made up of the finest people in the land, who come from a
lineage and tradition of public service, would take many of the responsible positions of governance. Not
having to stand for election would mean they wouldn't have to pander to the electorate and instead could
make the better decisions. A democratic element means that the wishes and opinions of the ordinary
people cannot be overlooked in the direction of government and the formation and implementation of
policy.

Montesquieu and the separation of powers


Separation of powers, a term coined by French political Enlightenment thinker Baron de
Montesquieu (1685-1755), is a model for the governance of democratic states, which he expounded
in De l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws), a work published anonymously in 1748. Under this model,
the state is divided into branches, and each branch of the state has separate and independent powers
and areas of responsibility. The branches are normally divided into the Executive, the Legislative, and the
Judicial. He based this model on the British constitutional system, in which he perceived a separation of
powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law. Subsequent writers have noted that this
was misleading, since Great Britain had a very closely connected legislature and executive, with further
links to the judiciary (though combined with judicial independence). No democratic system exists with an
absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. Nonetheless, some systems
are clearly founded on the principle of separation of powers, while others are clearly based on a mingling
of powers.

Montesquieu was highly regarded in the British colonies in America as a champion of British liberty
(though not of American independence). Political scientist Donald Lutz found that Montesquieu was the
most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America.
[24]
Following the American secession, Montesquieu's work remained a powerful influence on many of

19
the American Founders, most notably James Madison of Virginia, the "Father of the Constitution."
Montesquieu's philosophy that "government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another"
reminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national government
required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers.

Proponents of separation of powers believe that it protects democracy and forestalls tyranny; opponents
of separation of powers, such as Professor Charles M. Hardin,[25] have pointed out that, regardless of
whether it accomplishes this end, it also slows down the process of governing, promotes executive
dictatorship and unaccountability, and tends to marginalize the legislature.

Elements of liberal democracy


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

 Free, regular elections with a secret ballot. People can stand for election either as independent
candidates or as members of a political party. Voters can cast their votes freely and secretly without
fear of intimidation.

 A separation of powers or functions which is set out in a constitution so that there are checks and
balances and no one person, group, or institution can attain or exercise unlimited power. The job of
the legislature is to codify laws, passing new ones if necessary. Within this framework, the executive
implements the policies that have been elected. The judiciary upholds the laws.

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

 A free and independent media able to report, discuss, and comment on events, public persons,
and expose corruption and the abuse of power without fear.

 The rule of law which protects people's liberties.

 Freedom of association, to form political, religious, civic, and charitable groups free from
government control.

 Freedom of religion, and an ecumenical civic consensus that values all legitimate forms of religion
as promoting values supportive of the public welfare.

 Freedom of speech—the right to hold and espouse any opinion without violating the laws of libel
or inciting a breach of the peace.

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

20
 Education and literacy, which encourages people to think for themselves.

Beyond the public level


This article has discussed democracy as it relates to systems of government. This generally involves
nations and subnational levels of government, although theEuropean Parliament, whose members are
democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a
supranational democratic institution. On the other hand there are many who criticize the democratic deficit
within the European Union. There is no European demos and parties in the Parliament are all national
ones. The only body with the right to propose legislation is the European Commission whose members
are appointed by governments and not elected.

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

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


 In business, corporations elect their boards by votes weighed by the number of shares held by
each owner.
 Trade unions sometimes choose their leadership through democratic elections. In the U.S.,
democratic elections in unions were rare before Congress required them in the 1950s.[26]
 Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

The future of democracy


The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without
interruption for several decades. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the
future, to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of
human society. This prediction formed the core of Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" theory. However
the resurgence of Islam with a vision of a restored caliphate, the rise of China as an economic
superpower while remaining a one-party state, and the contraction of nascent democracy in Russia have
dented that prediction.

Not everyone regards democracy as the only form of legitimate government. In some
societies monarchy, aristocracy, one-party rule, or theocracy are still regarded as having greater
legitimacy. Each of them is capable of producing good government. Whether they change into
democracies depends on a country's political culture and traditions, which themselves are a product of
its family structure, religion, geography, demography, and historical experience. As these change and
evolve so too will a country's polity.

21
Problems with democracy

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

The eclipse of limited government. The aim of constitutional democracy was to limit government. The
separation of powers was developed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power, along with the rule of law,
due process, and the distinction between public and private law. However, with the appearance of a
universal franchise, it has seemed unnecessary to limit government. It is commonly asserted that if a
government is elected by the majority of the people, it should have the right to pass any measure and
enact any policy. Limiting the power of a legitimately elected government has come to appear
undemocratic, thwarting of the will of the people, which is one of the problems originally identified by
Socrates.

The rising influence of special interest groups. Modern elected governments often do not serve the
agreed opinion of the majority, but instead serve numerous special interest groups who lobby for special
treatment from the government. Such a relatively small group greatly benefits from legislation passed in
its favor, whereas the impact on the rest of the population is so small that it may not seem worthwhile to
oppose it (or, the general population may simply be unaware of detrimental provisions in bills offered by
special interest groups). Thus there is an increasing prevalence of bargaining democracy as opposed
to representative democracy. Coalitions are formed of a multitude of special interests, each of which
consents to the special benefits granted to other groups only at the price of their own special interests
being equally considered. Group selfishness is thus a greater threat to democracy than individual
selfishness. In many respects, Western democracy has come to be manipulated by lobbyists, or group
interests, while the wishes of the majority are ignored. Worse, policies the majority would actively
disapprove of, which further the interests only of elite minorities, are the ones enacted.

Government above the law. Although constitutionalists sought to limit government by the separation of
powers, they did not separate the functions sufficiently. Thus, legislatures pass not only laws but are
concerned with the business of government. They often pass legislation only suited to achieve the
purposes of the moment. In a sense, they change the rules of the game so as to never lose. Thus there is
no longer government under the law, since the government makes the law, often excluding itself and its
representatives from that law. Placing the power of legislation proper and of governmental measures in
the same hands has effectively brought a return to unlimited government. In this sense, the danger is that
government exists for the maintenance of the ruling elite, regardless of party and country. Moreover, as
with the U.S. Supreme Court, there is the problem of the judiciary evolving into a de facto legislative
organ beyond which there is no appeal, by overturning laws approved by the legislative and executive
branches.

22
Excessive partisanship and the politics of envy. In the past, when the political culture was still
essentially Christian-based, politicians tended to behave in a relatively responsible way. With the decline
of the Christian political culture and the rise of the politics of envy, the system is open to great abuse.
Politicians promise to deal with social and economic problems, unaware that government cannot solve
them and indeed is often the cause. They are tempted to bribe the electorate, pandering to their baser
instincts, and sometimes to misplaced idealism, in order to be elected to solve such problems. The
disconnect between campaign promises and actual policies enacted once elected is often wide.
Possible solutions

It can rightly be asked if democracy is the true end goal of human civilization, or if people must settle
for Winston Churchill's characterization that, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all
those others that have been tried." The dilemma is essentially a spiritual or cultural one that expresses
itself in the problems identified above. So often proposed solutions have been confused and superficial
and even tended to make matters worse. This is because of the lack of depth of modern political
philosophy compared to that of the giants of the past.

It is necessary for the original political culture that gave rise to liberal democracy to be revived, updated,
and articulated in a language that addresses people in the twenty-first century in a way that Locke,
Montesquieu, and Mill did for their own centuries. This should explain that the purpose and value of
freedom under the law is to enable people to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness and, thus, live
meaningful and moral lives. It should inspire people to live according to their conscience, living unselfishly
to benefit others so that the purpose for the whole can be achieved in a natural and voluntary way. When
people live in this way, disagreements can be peacefully solved through the democratic process because
people know each other to be good hearted. In this way, people will be able to live in peace with each
other.[27]

Also, the rules for the organization of government should be updated to better protect freedom. Many
lessons should have been learned from the past two hundred years of democracy. Many problems have
arisen that political philosophers of the past cannot be expected to have forseen. There needs to be a
clearer delineation of functions of the different organs of government so as to establish and protect the
institutions necessary for freedom and peace.[28]

23
Democracy

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

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] equality


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

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and
more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not structured
so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or
any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in it's own favor, then a
branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[9][10]
[11]
Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, andDeliberative Democracy are
pseudo-democracies because they do not allow direct citizen participation in the legislative
process.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. So it is possible for


a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" without governmental or
constitutional protections of individual liberties. An essential part of an "ideal" representative

24
democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[12] and procedurally.
[13]
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, andfreedom of the
press are considered by some to be essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote
in their personal interests.[14][15]

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

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

Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece,[17][18] but democratic practices are
evident in earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India.[19] Other cultures
since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient
Rome,[17] Europe,[17] and North and South America.[20] The concept of representative
democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European
Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American andFrench Revolutions.
[21]
Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably
across the globe.[22] The right to vote has been expanded in many Jurisdictions over time
from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New
Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.

[edit]History of democracy
Main article: History of democracy

[edit]Ancient origins
The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought.
The philosopher Platocontrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the
alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite
class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners).[23] AlthoughAthenian democracy is

25
today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two
distinguishing features: first the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to
government offices and courts,[24]and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.[25]

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

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

A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics"
of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in
some areas until the 4th century AD.[28] The evidence is scattered and no pure historical
source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian at the time
of Alexander the Great's excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that
independent and democratic states existed in India.[29] However, modern scholars note that
the word democracy at the 3rd century BC and later had been degraded and could mean
any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.[30][31] The lack of the concept of
citizen equality across caste system boundaries lead many scholars to believe that the true
nature of ganas and sanghas would not be comparable to that of truly democratic
institutions.[32]

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

[edit]Middle Ages

26
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies,
although often only involving a small amount of the population, the election
of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland,
the Løgting in the Faroe Islands, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice,
the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republicsof
medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tirol and Switzerland and the
autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was
often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in
medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.

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

Magna Carta, 1215, England

The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written
into Magna Carta, explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or
fettered — and implicitly supported what became English writ of habeas corpus,
safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The
first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265.

However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few
percent of the population, (less than 3% as late as 1780[34]), and the power to call parliament
was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of
Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rightsof 1689 was enacted, which codified certain

27
rights and increased the influence of Parliament.[34] The franchise was slowly increased and
Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.
[35]
As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten
boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in
the Reform Act of 1832.

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

Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often
do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority.
In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in
a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence,
that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the
willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and
entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged
conformity and discouraged individualism.[38]

[edit]18th and 19th centuries

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

Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders
shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom

28
and equality. [39] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected
government and protected civil rights and liberties for some.

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

During the 1820s and 1830s the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.) was the primary
vehicle for proposals to return black Americans to freedom in Africa, and in 1821 the A.C.S.
established the colony of Liberia, assisting thousands of former African-American slaves
and free black people to move there from the United States.[41] By the 1840s almost all
property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and
turnout averaged 60–80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The
system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and
beyond. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had
grown to four million,[42] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly
freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote. Full
enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights
Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.

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

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

29
New Zealand granted suffrage to (native) Māori men in 1867, white men in 1879, and
women in 1893, thus becoming the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage.
However, women were not eligible to stand for parliament until 1919.

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

[edit]20th and 21st centuries


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

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

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

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

By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although the
majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and
other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)

30
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the
period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005

A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal


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

Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression,


contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the
democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful
of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe,
and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . Some
researchers consider that in contemporary Russia there is no real democracy and one of
forms of dictatorship takes place.[49]

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

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

31
respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38
percent of the global population.[51]

As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where
liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This
prediction forms the core ofFrancis Fukayama's "End of History" controversial theory. These
theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to post-
democracy, and others who point out the high number of illiberal democracies.

[edit]Forms

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

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

[edit]Representative

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people


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

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular


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

[edit]Parliamentary

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by


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

32
[edit]Liberal

A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected


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

[edit]Constitutional

See: Constitutional democracy


[edit]Direct

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

1. Change constitutional laws,


2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,
3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before
the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign
promise.

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

33
example of direct democracy as of yet, with most examples being small and weak
forms.

[edit]Participatory

A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled


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

A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of


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

[edit]Socialist

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

— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary[62]

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social


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

Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal


democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its
often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism
they see in capitalism, Marxists,Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct
democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes

34
called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and
begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)

[edit]Anarchist

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

Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy,


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

[edit]Iroquois

Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative


democracy.[68] Elizabeth Tooker, a Temple University professor of anthropology
and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois, has reviewed
the claim that the Iroquois inspired the American Confederation and concluded
they are myth rather than fact. The relationship between the Iroquois League and
the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and
a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the
documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized
the advantages of uniting against a common enemy, and that ultimately there is
little evidence to support the idea that 18th century colonists were knowledgeable
regarding the Iroquois system of governance. What little evidence there is
regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted
representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe
was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and
there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most

35
senior woman within the hereditary lineage, in consultation with other women in
the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were
unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker
concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers [of the
Constitution] borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case
is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois
linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[69]

[edit]Sortition

Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of


choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those
chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large,
and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in
widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.

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

[edit]Supranational

Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the


principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This
system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but
heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of
representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed
rather than directly elected.

Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be


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

Cosmopolitan


Democracy is not only a political system… It is an ideal, an aspiration,
really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it
is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human. ”
36
—Nikolas Kompridis, [70]

Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism,


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

Cosmopolitan Democracy was promoted, among others, by physicist Albert


Einstein,[72] writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist George Monbiot, and professors David
Held and Daniele Archibugi.[73]

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

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

 Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by


voting.
 Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.
 Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their
customers or workers.

Theory

37
Aristotle
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few
(oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or
today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad
variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate
counterpart to polity).[74][75]

For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a


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

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that


is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men
participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one
factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of
justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the
principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the
decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that
each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in
democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of
them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark
of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one
is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty,
inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the
second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be
governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in
turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian
liberty.[4]

[edit]Conceptions

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

 Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’


preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social
policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that

38
democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with
the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:
 Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which
citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections.
According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not
“rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no
clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph
Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy.[76] Contemporary proponents of minimalism
include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski,Richard Posner.
 Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should
participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and
policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support
this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and
educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most
importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly
decide laws and policies.
 Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to
the views of the median voter – with half to his left and the other half to his
right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of
self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for
votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to
act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Anthony
Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of
Democracy.[77]
 Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is
that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a
political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal
consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the
collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in
which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are
perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these
institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are
used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public
policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create

39
a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.
[78]
Some[who?] see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and
therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who?] may
see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as
opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an
argument for making political participation mandatory, like
compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply
refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to
speak their minds.
 Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government
by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should
be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should
be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their
minds.
 Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and
oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make
visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and
antagonisms in decision making processes.

[edit]Republic

Main article: Republicanism

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the


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

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

40
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[81] was that the
government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making,
and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S.
constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a
monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[82]

[edit]Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers


Initially after the American and French revolutions the question was open whether
a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an
elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or
having lifetime tenures, or should have aconstitutional monarch with limited but
real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian
countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) turned powerful monarchs into
constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles.

Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in
France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt).
Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime
tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and
remained powerful (as in the United States).

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

Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a related


theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in living standards has
convinced people that they can take their basic survival for granted, and led to
increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly correlated to
democracy.[83]

Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human


capital and within them of cognitive ability. They increase tolerance, rationality,
political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are
distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better

41
information processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values,
freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence (cognitive
development being a prerequisite for moral development; Glaeser et al., 2007;
Deary et al., 2008; Rindermann, 2008). [84]

Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges


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

[edit]Facts

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

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

[edit]Opposition to democracy
Main article: Opposition to democracy

42
Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the existing
government. The implementation of a democratic government within a non-
democratic state is typically brought about by democratic
revolution. Monarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day
remains opposed to its abolition, although often political compromise has been
reached in the form of shared government.

Currently, opposition to democracy exists most notably in communist states, and


absolute monarchies which appear to have various reasons for opposing the
implementation of democracy or democratic reforms.[citation needed]

[edit]Criticism of democracy
Main article: Criticism of democracy

Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of


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

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

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

43
a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are
top priority.[90]

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

[edit]Popular rule as a façade


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

44

Você também pode gostar