DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Real world meaning and definition
There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.
In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.
The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατÃα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix Ãα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.
Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.
While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions:
A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights." -
Famous viewpoints on democracy
There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right.
On the one hand, Winston Churchill said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
On the other, Edmund Burke:
"I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."
Burke expressed his view as agreement with Aristotle because Aristotle had called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).
Further, people who believe that any government will do more harm than good (i.e. anarchists), naturally regard the issue of whether the best government is democratic as secondary, comparing that question to "How long is the horn of a unicorn?" -
Role of political parties
Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected.
Les Marshall, an expert on the spread of democracy to nations that have not traditionally had these institutions, notes that "globally, there is no alternative to multi-party representative democracy" for those states that embrace democratic methods at all. This is not controversial: representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic". -
Elections as rituals
Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.
Firstly, elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can happen in a variety of different ways:
restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election
restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office
voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g. through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)
or most simply through falsification of the results
Historical examples of this include the USSR under the CPSU before its collapse in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.
In addition, for countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy, until a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government have occurred too. There are various examples, such as Revolutionary France or modern Uganda or Iran, of countries have only able to sustain democracy in a limited form until wider cultural changes occur to enable real majority rule. -
Tyranny of the majority
This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.
Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority,". This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. For example, it is theoretically possible in a liberal democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly).
Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. A constitution (whether written or unwritten) can ensure a distinction between policy enacted through the legislature and executive, and the modification of fundamental constitutional rights, which may require a more deliberative procedure (such as an independent judiciary) and less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Another common argument is that, despite these risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is at all events an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised majority, as well as cases of societies that oppressed a minority of the enfranchised.
One clear conclusion from history is that possession of the franchise doesn't necessarily protect one from oppression. However, it can provide some defence.
Here are some examples of instances in which a majority has acted controversially against the wishes of a minority in relation to specific issues:
In France, some consider current bans on personal religious symbols in public schools to be a violation of religious peoples' rights.
In the United States:
distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
"pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized unborn children as an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority.
the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes.
Recreational drug users are seen by some as a sizable minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, through criminalization of drug use. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
Society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. One example is the criminalization of gay sex in Britain during the 19th and much of the 20th century, made famous by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.
Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent. Whether this is pertinent to the dangers of modern democracies is itself a continuing matter of contention.
Some commentators object to the use of the term "tyranny of the majority" in relation to societies in the 19th century and earlier. They point out that few countries at that time, including democracies, had adopted universal suffrage. However, others argue that the term remains apt, as the situation that it describes can occur within the franchised community, even if that community does not extend to the whole population. -
Pros and cons
Traditionally, the purpose of democracy is to prevent the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few. It rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Alexander Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy is believed by some, such as Winston Churchill, to be the "least bad" form of government. By creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. Democracy is also related to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.
Nonetheless, some people believe that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision.
The threat of coercive power is still the main cause for concern. A historical example would be Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, who was "elected" in 1933 by the German people with the largest minority vote. For this reason, some countries have created constitutions/laws that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or, very rarely, a referendum. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. On the other hand, proponents of broader democracy wonder what gives a small minority of people (such as those who drafted the US Constitution, or other constitutions/laws) the right to impose their will on the majority.
In addition to constitutional protections for citizens' rights (such as the right to stay alive, express political opinions and form political organizations, independent and regardless of government approval), some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority.
This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional (majoritarian) representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.
The democratic peace theory claims that democracies never or almost never make war against each other. A related but slightly different concept is Rummel's Law, which states that the less freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them. -
Reply: Yes, I agree with you that the ancient Greeks had originated democracy and over time democracy has evolved into a more practical form widely practised by most democratic nations in Western Europe, UK and USA etc.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.
Reply: The subject under discussion is "Definition of True Democracy". The problem is : autocracy which started as a Westminister democracy, has over time converted it with "GRC" and "Redrawing of electoral boundaries" etc into a pseudo-democracy hence the need to lay down the 7 points of true democracy. Your definition of democracy as a sytem where legislative decisions are made by the people agreed with the 7 points as well. You agreed too that the rule of law one of the 7 points is an integral part of true democracy.
In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In most modern democratic nations, for example, the set of citizens who can exercise these powers through voting are restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older. A further qualification is that, realistically, in elections, decisions are not made by the whole of "the people", but rather by most of the people who actually participate.
Reply:"Democractic processes do commonly lay down who and at what age a citizen is permitted to take part in electoral process. There is a need to lay out true points of democracy to ensure that we do not further degenerate autocracy into a one-party domination through changing of one-man one-vote to certain-man-two votes as suggested by autocracy some time back.
The term "democracy"—or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word—was coined and the system of citizen rule invented thousands of years ago. Over time, the meaning of the term has changed and especially since the 18th century, with successive implementations in many nations, a modern definition has emerged
-
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
There may be many forms of democracy but I do not think anyone should characterize any particular democracy as liberal democracy.
[b]Real world meaning and definition
There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.
In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.
The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατÃα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix Ãα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.
Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.
While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions:
A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."
[/b]
The term liberal democracy has been used loosely without particular definition to describe freedoms and choices as likely cause of instability against status quo without regard to the fact that non-democratic and authoritarian regimes were more often the primary causes of instability or revolutions throughout history.
History has proven again and again that dictatorial or autocratic regimes do not last no matter how enlightened they might be initially. There was no consistent enduring good rule under autocracy as compared with democracy in terms of modernisation and progress or rule by the people and for the people as you have correctly deduced from the ancient Greek democracy.
Today, no matter how circuitous democracy may be, democracy truly answer to the wishes of people or manifestos of parties. It stands solidly on principles of progress - the greatest good to the greatest number as practised by USA, UK and western European countries. Many democratised countries have advanced beyond leaps and bound whereas only limited and sporadic successes can be claimed for non-democratic rule. So much is the appeal of democracy that even autocracy prefers to be seen in democratic form.
I could accept your statement that from the 18th century democracy has evolved to be essentially a political rule "by the people" "of the people" and "for the people".
In the context of our discussion on autocracy versus contemporary Western democracy, what we are examining is the issue of how to adopt accountable and transparent governance processes like freedom of speech, association, right to vote and stand for election and rule according to open, participation by civic and professional bodies, NGOs, and citizen groups etc to evolve our autocratic rule to one more sustainable and answerable to the people.
Thus I do not think we can find the practical solutions in past academic reseaches on democracy or its more ancient origin. By comparison democracy certainly stands much taller than any of the systems like communism, anarchism or autocracy as a matter of well-established historical fact.
Liberal democracy to my mind exists as only a figment in the imagination of people critical of democracy. It is a derogatory term used used by anti-democratic politcians or political writers to protect biased views from non-democratic regimes as pointed out by me in reply to a Malaysian democracy-lambasting article as posted earlier.
In an autocracy, leaders elected democratically or otherwise proclaimed themselves as supreme leaders with unlimited power over other elected parliamentarians or people's representatives on the thin line of leadership or certain intuitive abilities with disregard to established accountable and transparent governance practices.
No justification will change autocracy or make it more sustainable in the long-term interest of the people, by the people and for the people.
In an autocracy, the elected Parliament will play only as a second fiddle. Through gerrymandeering, many democratic processes have been altered.
You prefer to give your own list of democratic processes as follows:-
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities.
You described your list as one of "majority rule with minority rights." I can see little difference between your list and the 7 points of true democracy. I agree that your list too can serve as a practical platform offering good corporate governance to support our further growth.
[/b][/quote] -
Communism is a term that can refer to one of several things: a social and economic system, an ideology which supports that system, or a political movement that wishes to implement that system.
As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no privately owned means of production and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the state as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status. Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of property as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the poverty cycle.
Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This economic model is also referred to as a gift economy.
As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the communist desire to establish a gift economy, and their commitment to revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.
A communist is someone who favors communism -
"Human nature"
Objectivists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature." Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.
Communists (and most Western social scientists) have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. Communists usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, which shapes a persons character and the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them. And so consequently, this idea that 'human nature' is not invariable, or even that it does not exist, opens up the door to the argument that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, all selfish desires and greed will cease to exist. Once the economic and social conditions which make humans selfish have disappeared to be replaced by an atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, then people can work not for their personal gain, or to accumulate commodities, but for the good of the collective and the community, thus making a better society for all. -
Democratic socialism
Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the ideals of socialism within the framework of a parliamentary democracy. Thinkers, writers and activists such as Robert Owen, Karl Marx, George Orwell, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb can all be said to have contributed to "democratic socialist philosophy". However, popular movements such as the growth of trade unionism, the Chartists and the Labour Party (UK) (a "democratic socialist party" according to the first line of its constitution) or the SPD in Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, are equally critical to understanding Democratic Socialism.
It should be noted, however, that many of those who describe themselves as "socialists" often argue that socialism necessarily implies democracy, thus making "democratic socialism" a redundant term. The fact that one specific movement is called Democratic Socialism does not mean that other branches of socialism must be any less democratic.
The terms "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy" have often been used interchangeably, and, indeed, they could be considered synonymous until recently. Today, however, they usually denote two different things: Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with just a few socialist elements to make it more equitable and humane. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialism is more left-wing and it supports a fully socialist system, seeking to establish that socialist system by gradually reforming capitalism from within. Thus, Democratic Socialism is an evolutionary socialist movement.
Democratic socialists and social democrats both typically advocate at least a welfare state, although social democrats, being influenced by the Third Way, are now less committed to this. Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and the nationalisation of major industry, and some believe in a planned economy; these are all concepts which social democrats have largely abandoned. In addition, many democratic socialists retain a Marxist analysis (though sometimes a reformist one), while social democrats reject Marxism.
Democratic socialist parties appeared before the First World War, when no single country could be described as democratic in the modern use of the term, because of electoral discrimination on the basis of gender, race or wealth. What distinguished democratic socialists from others was a willingness to work through a parliamentary democracy (even if people were still disenfranchised) to both improve the lives of working classes and win the vote, rather than resort to revolution (the overthrow of the state). -
Characteristics
Democratic socialists have normally defended the role of the public sector, particularly as regards the provision of key services such as health care, education, utilities, mass transit, and sometimes also banking, mining, and fuel extraction. However, their economic vision has often included a mixed economy with a greater emphasis on worker and consumer co-operatives, credit unions, family farms and small businesses, as compared to authoritarian Marxist-Leninists. In India, democratic socialists have to varying degrees seen the traditional village-based peasant economy as a model to be supported and enhanced.
Regarding tactics, democratic socialists include a spectrum of positions, from those advocating nonviolent resistance against capitalism, or the possibility of violent resistance under certain circumstances, to those committed exclusively to anti-capitalist reforms through parliamentary means (see evolutionary socialism and Fabianism). Democratic socialists advocating direct action may tend to similar positions with anarcho-syndicalism (with which democratic socialism shares the characteristics of being both anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian), although democratic socialists characteristically do not regard the state itself as an evil to be abolished. -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]Famous viewpoints on democracy
There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right.
On the one hand, Winston Churchill said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
On the other, Edmund Burke:
"I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."
Burke expressed his view as agreement with Aristotle because Aristotle had called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).
While Winston Churchill might have said something to the effect that democracy was not perfect or world-wise, he certainly did not go so far as to say that there were other more progressive or enduring systems either.
Even though there exist certain shortcomings in democracy, democracy has gained popularity with people all over the world as compared with monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy or any other systems.
Since the days of Winston Churchill and Burke more countries have turned to democracy which is now a well-established form of government offering freedoms or rights to people to choose their representatives or good leaders and accountable and transparent processes to prevent abuse and malpractices.
Democratic countries have outperformed autocracy in terms of social and cultural, scientific and technological developments by large majority. This is because under conditions of freedoms of choice, etc people are self-reliant and motivated to excel in diverse fields thereby leading to progress and advancements and producing the greatest good for the greatest numbers.
Whereas good leaders come and go in autocracy, depending on particular circumstances and lucks, good leadership is sustained through casting the net wider.
Furthermore, no matter how enlightened particular leaders may be in an autocracy, autocratic self-centred closed-door decision making are against progress principle and stifling the growth of entrepreneurship in a knowledge-based new global economy.
So in order to evolve the best model of government one which will unlock the collective entrepreneurship and creaitivy of the people, there is a need to open up to participative governance to embrace the whole educated workforce. This is what our discussion is all about - where autocracy is a sustainable in the long term interest in our case versus democracy in our context.
The only point relevant of consideration in an autocracy is its claims of good leadership abilities or finding of good leaders. In an age of accelerating technologies, good leaders are not just a few top leades or people who are charismatic and insightful. Individualism is not efficiency or productivity in the first instance. Organizational efficiency and group creativity and synergy is the key to success in the new world. Especially valuable quality will be capability to motivate all in implementing decisions and policies subscribed to by the government and people.
Democracy offers (1) freedoms of speech, (2) freedom to elect the leaders of their choice to represent them, (3) accountable and transparent decision making processes and (4) participative governance and (5) checks and balances against possible abuse or malpractices,
In particular the holistic system of checks and balances under democracy even if a bit more circuitous will ensure fullest support and representation of people's rights and aspirations. Because of such accountability and transparency, and eventual support of the people, democracy will continue to outperfom tyranny, autocracy, oligarchy and other systems.
[/b] -
We live in a time when the call for freedom and democracy echoes across the globe. Eastern Europe has cast off the totalitarian governments of almost half a century, and the republics of the former Soviet Union are struggling to replace the Communist regime of almost 75 years with a new democratic order, something they could never before experience. But the drama surrounding the extraordinary political changes in Europe obscures the remarkable degree to which the promise of democracy has mobilized peoples throughout the world. North and South America are now virtually a hemisphere of democracy; Africa is experiencing an unprecedented era of democratic reform; and new, dynamic democracies have taken root in Asia.
This worldwide phenomenon belies the skeptics who have contended that modern liberal democracy is a uniquely Western artifact that can never be successfully replicated in non-Western cultures. In a world where democracy is practiced in nations as different as Japan, Italy, and Venezuela, the institutions of democracy can legitimately claim to address universal human aspirations for freedom and self-government.
Yet freedom's apparent surge during the last decade by no means ensures its ultimate success. Chester E. Finn, Jr., professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Educational Excellence Network, said in remarks before a group of educators and government officials in Managua, Nicaragua: "That people naturally prefer freedom to oppression can indeed be taken for granted. But that is not the same as saying that democratic political systems can be expected to create and maintain themselves over time. On the contrary. The idea of democracy is durable, but its practice is precarious."
Democratic values may be resurgent today, but viewed over the long course of human history, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century to the rise of one-party regimes in the mid-20th century, most democracies have been few and short-lived. This fact is cause for neither pessimism nor despair; instead, it serves as a challenge. While the desire for freedom may be innate, the practice of democracy must be learned. Whether the hinge of history will continue to open the doors of freedom and opportunity depends on the dedication and collective wisdom of the people themselves--not upon any of history's iron laws and certainly not on the imagined benevolence of self- appointed leaders.
Contrary to some perceptions, a healthy democratic society is not simply an arena in which individuals pursue their own personal goals. Democracies flourish when they are tended by citizens willing to use their hard-won freedom to participate in the life of their society--adding their voices to the public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their actions, and accepting the need for tolerance and compromise in public life. The citizens of a democracy enjoy the right of individual freedom, but they also share the responsibility of joining with others to shape a future that will continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government. -
DEFINING DEMOCRACY
Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.
In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.
Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.
Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.
Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.
How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions. -
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."
These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India. -
Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.
Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.
These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.
In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.
In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state. -
RIGHTS
Inalienable Rights
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In these memorable words of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a fundamental principle upon which democratic government is founded. Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence.
In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can remove or "alienate" them.
Inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy--democratic societies also assert such civil rights as the right to a fair trial--but it does constitute the core rights that any democratic government must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor are they subject to the momentary whim of an electoral majority. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not give freedom of religion or of the press to the people; it prohibits the Congress from passing any law interfering with freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. A historian, Leonard Levy, has said, "Individuals may be free when their government is not."
The detailed formulation of laws and procedures concerning these basic human rights will necessarily vary from society to society, but every democracy is charged with the task of building the constitutional, legal, and social structures that will ensure their protection. -
Speech
Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all--these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech and information. Canadian Patrick Wilson, creator of the television series The Struggle for Democracy, observes: "Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves."
Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better. American essayist E.B. White put it this way: "The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and dwell in the light....There is safety in numbers."
In contrast to authoritarian states, democratic governments do not control, dictate, or judge the content of written and verbal speech. Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to the broadest possible range of information enables them to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance breeds apathy. Democracy thrives upon the energy of citizens who are sustained by the unimpeded flow of ideas, data, opinions, and speculation.
But what should the government do in cases where the news media or other organizations abuse freedom of speech with information that, in the opinion of the majority, is false, repugnant, irresponsible, or simply in bad taste? The answer, by and large, is nothing. It is simply not the business of government to judge such matters. In general, the cure for free speech is more free speech. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non- democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled.
Furthermore, the advocate of free speech argues, the suppression of speech that I find offensive today is potentially a threat to my exercise of free speech tomorrow--which perhaps you or someone else might find offensive. One of the classic defenses of this view is that of English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who argued in his 1859 essay "On Liberty" that all people are harmed when speech is repressed. "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," Mill wrote, "if wrong, they lose...the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."
The corollary to freedom of speech is the right of the people to assemble and peacefully demand that the government hear their grievances. Without this right to gather and be heard, freedom of speech would be devalued. For this reason, freedom of speech is considered closely linked to, if not inseparable from, the right to gather, protest, and demand change. Democratic governments can legitimately regulate the time and place of political rallies and marches to maintain the peace, but they cannot use that authority to suppress protest or to prevent dissident groups from making their voices heard. -
Freedom and Faith
Freedom of religion, or more broadly freedom of conscience, means that no person should be required to profess any religion or other belief against his or her desires. Additionally, no one should be punished or penalized in any way because he or she chooses one religion over another or, indeed, opts for no religion at all. The democratic state recognizes that a person's religious faith is a profoundly personal matter.
In a related sense, freedom of religion means that no one can be compelled by government to recognize an official church or faith. Children cannot be compelled to go to a particular religious school, and no one can be required to attend religious services, to pray, or to participate in religious activities against his or her will. By reason of long history or tradition, many democratic nations have officially established churches or religions that receive state support. This fact, however, does not relieve the government of the responsibility for protecting the freedom of individuals whose beliefs differ from that of the officially sanctioned religion. -
Citizenship: Rights and Responsibilities
Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. While the state protects the rights of its citizens, in return, the citizens give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, on the other hand, the state, as an entity separate from the society, demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.
When citizens in a democracy vote, for example, they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall rule in their name. In an authoritarian state, by contrast, the act of voting serves only to legitimize selections already made by the regime. Voting in such a society involves neither rights nor responsibilities exercised by citizens--only a coerced show of public support for the government.
Similarly, citizens in a democracy enjoy the right to join organizations of their choosing that are independent of government and to participate freely in the public life of their society. At the same time, citizens must accept the responsibility that such participation entails: educating themselves about the issues, demonstrating tolerance in dealing with those holding opposing views, and compromising when necessary to reach agreement.
In an authoritarian state, however, private voluntary groups are few or nonexistent. They do not serve as vehicles for individuals to debate issues or run their own affairs, but only as another arm of the state that holds its subjects in positions of obedience.
Military service provides a different but equally contrasting example of rights and responsibilities in democratic and non-democratic societies. Two different nations may both require a period of peacetime military service by their young men. In the authoritarian state, this obligation is imposed unilaterally. In the democratic state, such a period of military service is a duty that the citizens of the society have undertaken through laws passed by a government they themselves have elected. In each society, peacetime military service may be unwelcome for individuals. But the citizen-soldier in a democracy serves with the knowledge that he is discharging an obligation that his society has freely undertaken. The members of a democratic society, moreover, have it within their power to act collectively and change this obligation: to eliminate mandatory military service and create an all-volunteer army, as the United States and other countries have done; change the period of military service, as happened in Germany; or, as in the case of Switzerland, maintain reserve military service for men as an essential part of citizenship.
Citizenship in these examples entails a broad definition of rights and responsibilities, since they are opposite sides of the same coin. An individual's exercise of his rights is also his responsibility to protect and enhance those rights--for himself and for others. Even citizens of well-established democracies often misunderstand this equation, and too often take advantage of rights while ignoring responsibilities. As political scientist Benjamin Barber notes, "Democracy is often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and more as the private possessions of individuals and thus as necessarily antagonistic to majoritarian democracy. But this is to misunderstand both rights and democracy."
It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic, or inalienable, rights--such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion--which thereby constitute limits on any democratically based government. In this sense, individual rights are a bulwark against abuses of power by the government or a momentary political majority.
But in another sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights are not the private possession of individuals but exist only insofar as they are recognized by other citizens of the society. The electorate, as the American philosopher Sidney Hook expressed it, is "the ultimate custodian of its own freedom." From this perspective, democratic government, which is elected by and accountable to its citizens, is not the antagonist of individual rights, but their protector. It is to enhance their rights that citizens in a democracy undertake their civic obligations and responsibilities.
Broadly speaking, these responsibilities entail participating in the democratic process to ensure its functioning. At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about the critical issues confronting their society--if only to vote intelligently for candidates running for high office. Other obligations, such as serving juries in civil or criminal trials, may be required by law, but most are voluntary.
The essence of democratic action is the active, freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their community and nation. Without this broad, sustaining participation, democracy will begin to wither and become the preserve of a small, select number of groups and organizations. But with the active engagement of individuals across the spectrum of society, democracies can weather the inevitable economic and political storms that sweep over every society, without sacrificing the freedoms and rights that they are sworn to uphold.
Active involvement in public life is often narrowly defined as the struggle for political office. But citizen participation in a democratic society is much broader than just taking part in election contests. At the neighborhood or municipal level, citizens may serve on school committees or form community groups, as well as run for local office. At the state, provincial, or national level, citizens can add their voices and pens to the continuing debate over public issues, or they can join political parties, labor unions, or other voluntary organizations. Whatever the level of their contribution, a healthy democracy depends upon the continuing, informed participation of the broad range of its citizens.
Democracy, Diane Ravitch writes, "is a process, a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility."
Democracy embodies ideals of freedom and self-expression, but it is also clear-eyed about human nature. It does not demand that citizens be universally virtuous, only that they will be responsible. As American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." -
Human Rights and Political Goals
As a principle, the protection of basic human rights is accepted widely: It is embodied in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of the United Nations and in such international agreements as the Helsinki Final Act (the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe--CSCE).
Distinguishing among different categories of rights is another matter. In recent times, there has been a tendency, especially among international organizations, to expand the list of basic human rights. To fundamental freedoms of speech and equal treatment before the law, these groups have added rights to employment, to education, to one's own culture or nationality, and to adequate standards of living.
These are all worthwhile undertakings, but when such entitlements proliferate as rights, they tend to devalue the meaning of basic civic and human rights. Furthermore, they blur the distinction between rights that all individuals possess and goals toward which individuals, organizations, and governments may reasonably be expected to strive.
Governments protect inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, through restraint, by limiting their own actions. Funding education, providing health care, or guaranteeing employment demand the opposite: the active involvement of government in promoting certain policies and programs. Adequate health care and educational opportunities should be the birthright of every child. The sad fact is that they are not, and the ability of societies to achieve such goals will vary widely from country to country. By transforming every human aspiration into a right, however, governments run the risk of increasing cynicism and inviting a disregard of all human rights. -
THE RULE OF LAW
Equality and the Law
The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.
The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."
No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served. -
Due Process
In every society throughout history, Frank points out, those who administer the criminal justice system hold power with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state, individuals have been imprisoned, had their property seized, and been tortured, exiled and executed without legal justification--and often without any formal charges ever being brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses.
Every state must have the power to maintain order and punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be public and explicit, not secret, arbitrary, or subject to political manipulation by the state. -
What are the essential requirements of due process of law in a democracy?
No one's home can be broken into and searched by the police without a court order showing that there is good cause for such a search. The midnight knock of the secret police has no place in a democracy.
No person shall be held under arrest without explicit, written charges that specify the alleged violation. Not only are persons entitled to know the exact nature of the charge against them, they also must be released immediately, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus, if the court finds that the charge is without justification or the arrest is invalid.
Persons charged with crimes should not be held for protracted periods in prison. They are entitled to a speedy and public trial, and to confront and question their accusers.
The authorities are required to grant bail, or conditional release, to the accused pending trial if there is little likelihood that the suspect will flee or commit other crimes. "Cruel and unusual" punishment, as determined by the traditions and laws of the society, is prohibited.
Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This prohibition against involuntary self- incrimination must be absolute. As a corollary, the police may not use torture or physical or psychological abuse against suspects under any circumstances. A legal system that bans forced confessions immediately reduces the incentives of the police to use torture, threats, or other forms of abuse to obtain information, since the court will not allow such information to be placed into evidence at the time of trial.
Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice. Any person tried by a court and found not guilty can never be charged with that same crime again.
Because of their potential for abuse by the authorities, so-called ex post facto laws are also proscribed. These are laws made after the fact so that someone can be charged with a crime even though the act was not illegal at the time it occurred.
Defendants may possess additional protections against coercive acts by the state. In the United States, for example, the accused have a right to a lawyer who represents them in all stages of a criminal proceeding, even if they cannot pay for such legal representation themselves. The police must also inform suspects of their rights at the time of their arrest, including the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent (to avoid self- incrimination).
A common tactic of tyranny is to charge opponents of the government with treason. For this reason, the crime of treason must be carefully limited in definition so that it cannot be used as a weapon to stifle criticism of the government.
None of these restrictions means that the state lacks the necessary power to enforce the law and punish offenders. On the contrary, the criminal justice system in a democratic society will be effective to the degree that its administration is judged by the population to be fair and protective of individual rights, as well as of the public interest.
Judges may be either appointed or elected to office, and hold office for specified terms or for life. However they are chosen, it is vital that they be independent of the nation's political authority to ensure their impartiality. Judges cannot be removed for trivial or merely political reasons, but only for serious crimes or misdeeds--and then only through a formal procedure, such as impeachment (the bringing of charges) and trial in the legislature.