DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Voting systems are methods (algorithms) for groups of people to select one or more options from many, taking into account the individual preferences of the group members. Voting is often seen as the defining feature of democracy, and is best known for its use in elections — but it can also be used to award prizes, to select between different plans of action, or as a means for computer programs to evaluate which solution is best for a complex problem.
A key property of voting systems is that, because they are algorithms, they must be formally defined. Consensus, for example, which is sometimes put forward as a voting system, is more properly a broad way of working with others, analogous to democracy or anarchy (See consensus decision making for disciplined consensus methods and how they relate to voting). -
Aspects of voting systems
The ballot
Different voting systems have different forms for allowing the individual to express their tolerances or preferences. In ranked ballot or "preference" voting systems, like Instant-runoff voting, the Borda count, or a Condorcet method, voters order the list of options from most to least preferred. In range voting, voters rate each option separately. In first-past-the-post (also known as plurality voting), voters select only one option, while in approval voting, they can select as many as they want. In voting systems that allow "plumping", like cumulative voting, voters may vote for the same candidate multiple times. -
District (constituency) size
A voting system may select only one option (usually a candidate, but also an option that represents a decision), in which case it is called a "single winner system", or it may select multiple options, for example candidates to fill an assembly or alternative possible decisions on the measure the ballot posed.
Some countries, like Israel, fill their entire parliament using a single multiple-winner district (constituency), while others, like the Republic of Ireland or Belgium, break up their national elections into smaller, multiple-winner districts, and yet others, like the United States or the United Kingdom, hold only single-winner elections. Some systems, like the Additional member system, embed smaller districts within larger ones. -
Party-list systems
In party-list proportional representation systems, candidates can be aligned with, or nominated by, parties, and the party's list of candidates plays a functional role within the system. These parties may in turn be aligned with other parties, to form coalitions, which can play roles beyond those played by the party. These systems are designed to ensure proportional representation, the idea that the candidates selected from a given party (or, in non-party-list systems, informal grouping) should be in proportion to the votes cast for that party. Some of these systems, however, have election thresholds--minimum numbers of votes cast for a party to win any seats. The purpose of an election threshold is generally to keep very small parties from participating in a parliament, in order to maintain stability of governments -
None of the above option
In some voting systems, voters may choose to select none of the candidates (or poll options), by voting for a "None of the above" option. If this option wins, the election fails; typically it will be re-run with a new set of candidates or poll options, all previous ones (having lost to "none of the above") being excluded. The philosophy behind having a "None of the above" option is that all possible alternatives should be considered in a decision; this option represents all of the alternatives not considered explicitly -
Write-in candidate - poll option
Some elections allow voters to write in the name of a person (or of the poll option) not on the ballot as their candidate (or as a poll option). Write-in candidates (poll options) rarely win and votes are often cast for ineligible people or fictional characters. This happens because write-in poll options or candidates are not visible to other voters. This is not usually an issue in the case of an e-voting system, where new write-in poll options or candidates can be made visible as the election takes place. Alternatively, some locations require write-in candidates or poll options to be registered before the election. -
Criteria in evaluating voting systems
Various criteria are used in evaluating voting systems. However, it is impossible for one voting system to pass all criteria in common use. For example, Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrates that the following criteria are mutually contradictory:
The voting system should always give a result
If a voter improves the ranking of a particular option, that option should not be disadvantaged (monotonicity criterion)
Removing a candidate should not change the winner of an election unless that candidate is the winner (independence of irrelevant alternatives)
Every possible outcome should be achievable
Non-dictatorship (i.e. more than one person's vote matters)
Other criteria which have been used to judge voting systems include:
Proportionality
Simplicity - speed
Resistance to strategy
Reduction of potential for dispute after the fact
Reduction of potential for fraud
Monotonicity criterion (MC)
Consistency Criterion (ConC)
Broadness Criterion (BC)
Condorcet Criterion (CC)
Generalized Condorcet criterion (GCC)
Strategy-Free criterion (SFC)
Generalized Strategy-Free criterion (GSFC)
Strong Defensive Strategy criterion (SDSC)
Weak Defensive Strategy criterion (WDSC)
Favorite Betrayal criterion (FBC)
Participation criterion (PC)
Summability criterion (SC) -
List of systems
Single Winner Systems
Single Winner systems can be classified by ballot type:
Binary voting A valid vote can only give a yes or nothing to a given candidate.
Ranked voting A valid vote can rank candidates 1,2,3... (Tied rankings are permitted in some methods but not others)
Rated voting A valid vote allows independent numerical values to be associated with each candidate. (The set of valid values is limited.)
They can also be classified on how many times votes can be counted. Methods like Plurality, Borda, and Approval with single counting rounds are simpler since voters can be sure to know how their votes will be applied. -
Binary voting methods
First-past-the-post (also called Plurality or Relative Majority or Winner-Take-All) - vote for at most one candidate. Most votes wins, even if this is less than a majority.
Runoff systems
Runoff voting - Two Round System - if no majority, hold a new election with only the top two candidates. This system is used for most single-winner elections in France.
Elimination runoff - if no majority, hold a new election with the weakest candidate eliminated. Repeat until there is a majority.
Exhaustive runoff - no eliminations, repeat balloting until there is a majority. Common in committees.
Approval voting (AV) - Voters may vote for as many candidates as they like. Candidate with most votes wins. Sometimes considered a version of Cardinal Rankings (see below) with a point range of [0,1]
Random ballot - May also be used for multiwinner elections, or as a tiebreaker for other methods -
Ranked Voting methods
Tied rankings not permitted
Instant-runoff voting (IRV, also known as alternative vote or "preference voting")
Supplementary vote: simplified IRV process (two rankings, two rounds)
Borda count: single round count, more points for higher-ranked
Coombs' method: disapproval runoff
Tied rankings permitted
Condorcet method, actually several families of systems that satisfy Condorcet's criterion:
Ranked Pairs (RP) and variants such as Maximize Affirmed Majorities and Maximum Majority Voting
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping (CSSD), which is also known as "Beatpath Method" or "Schulze Method"
Copeland's method
Other names for Condorcet-compliant methods:
VOTE-123: another name for Condorcet methods, stands for Virtual One-on-one Tournament Elections using 1st, 2nd, & 3rd choices
Majority voting or Maximum Majority voting: another term often used for Condorcet methods
Bucklin voting: approval runoff; voters vote for more candidates each round until a candidate reaches a majority -
Single Winner Variations
Automatic Equal Ranking Line Option (AERLO)
A voter may mark a line in his/her ranking, meaning that if no one above that line wins, then that voter wants to promote to 1st place all of his/her above-line candidates and have a recount. (In pairwise-count methods the promotion only takes place if, additionally, there's a circular tie containing above-line and below-line candidates).
Automatic Truncation Line Option (ATLO)
A voter may mark a line in his/her ranking, meaning that if no one above the line wins, then that voter wants to drop from his/her ranking all of his/her below-line candidates and have a recount. (In pairwise-count methods the dropping only takes place if, additionally, there's a circular tie containing above-line and below-line candidates). -
Multiple Winner Systems
Multiple Winner Systems (not party-list)
Plurality/majority
Block voting - Also called Plurality-at-large
Semiproportional
Proportional approval voting
Cumulative voting
Single non-transferable vote
Single transferable vote (STV)
Party-list proportional representation. Allocation methods:
Highest averages methods
Sainte-Laguë method
d'Hondt method
Largest remainder methods
Mixed Systems
Additional Member System (also called Mixed Member Proportional)
Parallel voting (also called Supplementary Member system) -
The spoiler effect is a term to describe the effect a candidate can have on a close election, in which their candidacy results in the election being won by a candidate dissimilar to them, rather than a candidate similar to them.
One often cited example of the spoiler effect at work was the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. In that election, George W. Bush and Al Gore had a very close election in many states, with neither candidate winning a majority of the votes. In Florida, the final certified vote totals show Bush winning just 537 more votes than Gore, thus winning the state and the Presidency (see Florida election results). Many Gore supporters contended that many of the 97,421 votes that went to Ralph Nader in that state would have likely been votes for Gore had Nader not been in the election (though Nader himself argued otherwise). They contend that Nader's candidacy "spoiled" the election for Gore, by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida and many other states to allow Bush to win.
Different voting systems are affected to a greater or lesser extent by the spoiler effect: in First Past the Post elections, the spoiler effect can be a defining feature of campaigns, while most Condorcet methods are barely affected by it.
A voting system which satisfies the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion is immune to the spoiler effect, but Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that rank-voting systems are unable to satisfy this criterion without exhibiting other undesirable properties as a consequence. Satisfaction of the independence of clone alternatives or local independence of irrelevant alternatives criteria also tend to indicate that a voting system is less susceptible to this effect.
Tactical voting, strategic nomination, and vote swapping are all common responses to the spoiler effect.
The spoiler effect is one of the components contributing to the effect known as Duverger's law, which states that the first-past-the-post election system creates and preserves a two-party system.
List of Spoilers (third-party candidates who feasibly could have denied victory to a major nominee)
James Birney, 1844
Martin van Buren, 1848
Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
Henry Ross Perot, 1992
Ralph Nader, 2000 -
A dominant-party system is a party system where only one political party can realistically become the government, by itself or in a coalition government, because all other parties are too weak.
Dominant-party systems are not to be confused with single-party systems, when other parties cannot compete to become the government because they are banned. Dominant-party systems exist only in states where other political parties are tolerated, but do not receive enough votes to have a realistic chance of winning. However, in some dominant-party systems, opposition parties are subject to varying degrees of official harassment and most often deal with rules and electoral systems designed to put them at a disadvantage or in some cases outright electoral fraud.
Examples of dominant-party systems include National Democratic Party in Egypt, the PRI in Mexico from the 1920s until 2000, the PAP in Singapore, the Democratic Party in the southern United States from about 1880 until the 1960s, and the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan from the 1950s until the present.
Dominant-party systems can occur temporarily. This can often occur when a two-party system is the norm, but one of the two parties sees a massive drop in support, often due to scandal or similar massive upset. An example of this is, arguably, the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1997 (18 years) where the Conservative party won all four elections in that period. Previously, in the post-war period, the government had rotated from Labour Party to Conservative Party five times.
Contemporary Canada would also qualify as a dominant-party system, with the Liberal Party being quite dominant since 1896 ruling almost three quarters of the time in that period, and continuously since 1993. In the party's history, Edward Blake is the only leader of the Liberal Party ever to not have been Prime Minister of Canada at some time. For some of the period, including today, the Liberals have ruled in a minority government.
Though the United States as a whole is characterized by a competitive two-party system, some individual states may qualify as a dominant-party system -
Two-party systems are naturally installed when the voting system used for elections discriminates against third or smaller parties, because the number of votes received for a party in a whole country is not directly proportional to the number of seats it receives in the country's assembly/assemblies. The most widely used system which has this effect is a simple plurality system (first past the post). Some representation systems such as a single elected president or mayor dominating the government, may encourage two-party systems since ultimately the contest will be between the two most popular candidates.
When candidates are elected from constituencies (districts), all votes that are not for the winner are discounted. This is another factor that encourages a two party system because smaller parties often cannot win all the votes in a constituency because they have smaller support and sometimes more scattered support than larger parties. Often a first-past-the-post electoral system and candidates being elected from constituencies (districts) are combined; this means that some smaller parties can have a significant proportional of votes nationally, but receive few seats and cannot realistically expect to compete with larger parties.
In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country is one constituency, like Israel, the electoral rules discourage a two party system; the number of votes received for a party is directly proportional to the number of votes received and new parties can develop an electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of proportional representation would make a two party system less likely. However, new parties are not guaranteed under any system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote.
Often, two-party systems are consequences of various factors, mostly the use of first-past-the-post, rather than deliberately engineered. They tend to favor two major political parties, as recognized in Duverger's law. -
Arguments for and against
The two-party system's defenders argue that
it produces more stable governance than multiparty systems, because coalition is highly unlikely to occur with two parties dominating.
it keeps 'undesirable' extremist parties out of power, like the British National Party (which most Brits perceive to be racist) in the United Kingdom.
uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies are non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly; though there is some controversy as to whether this is an advantage. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents suggest that it enhances stability while allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.
it gives a more transparent choice to voters: coalitions are created internally before the election rather than externally after it; it is easier to judge whether an elected government has delivered its promises since it cannot blame component parties' diversity for failure.
the dynamics of a two party system drives both parties' policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining distinctive enough to motivate their core support.
and even that two party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, are less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.
Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of the two-party system argue variously that:
stability is not desirable in itself.
the two-party system produces stable governments, rather than stable democracy, and the latter is what should be desired.
two-party systems are not intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, which has a multi-party system through proportional representation. -
The two-party system is also criticised for the following flaws:
Candidates are motivated to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party) and staking out only those positions that are necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent and not constructive or beneficial to citizens.
If the opposition party is weak, a dominant-party system may develop.
Debate in the assembly of the country can often be adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to important legislation, especially reforms, being blocked that may be beneficial for the country.
The system is more easily corrupted by campaign contributions since there are fewer players to donate to.
In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party's platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics' minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a "Republicrat."
The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the "biggest pile of votes wins" system) are also criticised because:
Most electors are forced to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice.
Smaller parties will be unrepresented: they will not receive a number of seats in the country's assembly that reflect the number of votes received for them (and therefore the amount of support for them). Some argue that this is undemocratic, as citizens who vote for small parties should be represented fairly.
Smaller parties often represent unconventional or 'alternative' (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of this ideology. It can be argued that in a democracy, all ideologies should be fairly represented.
Larger parties will benefit from being overrepresented; some argue this is undemocratic. -
A multi-party system is a type of party system.
Unlike a single-party system, it encourages the general constituency to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political parties. Each party competes for votes from the enfranchised constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system is essential for representative democracies, because it prevents the leadership of a single party from setting policy without challenge.
If the government includes an elected congress or parliament, the parties may share power according to Proportional Representation or the First-past-the-post system. In Proportional Representation, each party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives. In first-past-the-post, the electorate is divided into a number of districts, each of which selects one person to fill one seat by majority (or plurality) vote. First-past-the-post is not conducive to a proliferation of parties, and naturally gravitates toward a two-party system, in which only two parties have a real chance of electing their candidates to office. (This effect is known as Duverger's law.) Proportional Representation, on the other hand, does not have this tendency, and allows multiple major parties to arise.
This difference is not without implications. A two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles. According to some theories, this allows centrists to gain control. On the other hand, if there are three major parties, each with substantially less than a majority of the vote, two of them may find it necessary to compete for the support of the third. Some argue that this gives the third party inordinate political leverage. -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]Conflict, Compromise, and Consensus
QUOTE:Human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires. People want safety yet relish adventure; they aspire to individual freedom yet demand social equality.
Democracy is no different, and it is important to recognize that many of these tensions, even paradoxes, are present in every democratic society. According to Larry Diamond, coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a central paradox exists between conflict and consensus. Democracy is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict. At the same time, this conflict must be managed within certain limits and result in compromises, consensus, or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the society can shatter from within. If the government exerts excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the society can be crushed from above.UNQUOTE
REPLY: This is precisely what democracy is all about - freedoms of expression, association and choice as long as these freedoms do not violet the rights of others according to rule of laws. Yes, many people may seem outlandish but as long as what they do are not illegal and the state should not have the rights to interfere in such behaviour. Who is the moralist anyway to say that such behavior will shatter the society. The latter concern might get carried away too !!! If really there is such a threat, then very soon the elected representatives will be pressurized on grounds of public safety or other reasons to pass new legislations to deal with such risk then.
QUOTEThe answer is that there is no single or easy answer. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.
It is important to recognize that many conflicts in a democratic society are not between clear-cut "right" and "wrong" but between differing interpretations of democratic rights and social priorities. In the United States, there are many such debates. Is it proper, for example, to allocate a certain percentage of jobs to minority groups that have traditionally suffered from discrimination? Does the state have the right to expropriate someone's home for a badly needed road? Whose rights prevail when the society seeks to prohibit logging in the name of wilderness preservation, but at the cost of job losses and economic devastation to small communities dependent upon the lumber industry? Are the rights of citizens violated, or are those of the community protected, if the police stop people at random to curtail drug trafficking?UNQUOTE
REPLY: I agree that in debating rights and wrongs, such as the examples given, there may be situations requiring protections of the minority, the environment and to what extent the public should be safeguarded in cases of drugs etc. Social activists will have a great deal to demand but in a democracy, there is no problems for at the end all such problems should be brought to people's representatives' attention who must do their jobs to understand threats of public wellbeing and individual safety. To say that there are problems here and there is and something ought to be done with this or that is being obsessive. The state cannot solve every problem. There ought to be a certain give and take. But problems remain problems. So what if a certain problem persist with no solution in sight. Who is the social activist or government officer to try to go into all the details of behaviours or goings-on in any locality. One may not end up the wiser. I wonder if our nanny state is one over-concerned with every detail and want to engineer the behaviour or conduct of every citizen to the extent of prohibiting more conduct which is not really such offensive or threatening but not likable in the eye of certain citizens or themselves.
Instead of making the citizens bear the brunt of any complaints by anyone against peripheral issues of all kinds, government should try education in such situation and not be influenced by those who are over-sensitive or intolerant. It is not good governance to prescribe every cure for every such situation as human beings should be left to grow and not be constrained by too many rules and regulations. Have faith and do something to ameliorate real threats and sufferings without becoming obsessed in government.
I agree with the view that over time individuals and groups must be willing, at a minimum, to tolerate each other's differences, recognizing that the other side has valid rights and a legitimate point of view.
I agree that the various sides to a dispute, whether in a local neighborhood or national parliament, must learn how to live through education, compromise and seek a specific solution that builds on the general principle of majority rule and minority rights.
Only democracy offers solutions to such problems with social tolerance as there are sets of laws duly passed in parliaments and opportunities to pass further laws based on threats or violations of others to safeguard the rights of minority or particular groups felt deprived or affected. Other societies without such democratic processes might end up with internal conflicts and racial riots or genocides.
Certain social activists or groups are too obsessed and want the society to do more. That is why articles like "Coalition-building," are written by people like Diane Ravitch pointing out the need to compromise etc "is the essence of democratic action and that democratic solutions to problems is needed to enable all to live in a world of diversity."
But some government might go overboard as a result of public complaints and start to legislate all sorts of laws and regulations thereby causing more problems at the end to other groups targeted who might lose their rights to live as they like without infringing the laws of the land.
Therefore I agree that democracy should be flexible at certain level and not try to become too obsessed with minor issues. If there is a need to succeed as a community do so through other means like education, or maintaining entrepreneurship through investment and management excellence. Do not bash the laws or enforcenment of laws too hard on every one just to please anyone or any group.
I agree that Democracy is pragmatic. Ideas and solutions to problems can grow more vibrant through multiple approaches of good corporate governance - education, encouraging social cohesions and entrepreneurialship being pursued in various ministries.
If at the end the ministries of education, trades and industries and community development cannot fulfill people's wishes the officers or ministers will be peacefully replaced by voting of the citizens. This kind of political system is far better than trying to give more authority to anyone in government to do as they like or think.
Good people should be voted by the people in universal franchise to regularly improve quality of life and social cohesions and economic ocmpetitiveness. Only democracy offers a more sustainable long-term means to such aspirations and wishes of people.
I agree with the view that even if the government cannot protect against mistakes, end ethnic strife, or guarantee economic prosperity, in a democracy, it does, however, allow debate and examinations to identify mistakes, permit groups to meet and resolve differences, and offer opportunities for innovation and investment that are the engines of economic growth.
[/b]
-
-
THE GENERAL DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY
What is democracy? What standards should be used to determine whether and to what extent a government or organization is democratic? Is an organization democratic because its leaders say it is?
Democracy can be very elusive and in some countries and organizations it may appear to exist when in reality it does not. For example, around 500 B.C. in Rome, the Romans embraced democracy in the form of a republic. Loosely rendered, a republic was a thing that belonged to the people. As Rome conquered new lands and peoples far beyond its city boundaries, it conferred Roman citizenship and all the rights and privileges of a Roman citizen on them.
Said people were allowed to speak out on issues and to vote on them. There was, however, a catch to this proclaimed democracy — the citizens had to travel to the city of Rome in order to speak out on the issues and to vote on them. As most Roman citizens lived in far-flung territories well beyond Rome, it was too far away and too expensive for them to travel there. Consequently, as a practical matter, the overwhelming number of citizens were denied the opportunity to participate in the proclaimed democratic process.
For some guidance on this important issue, we turned to Robert Dahl, Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Yale University and author of five books on democracy.
In general terms, a democracy is a form of government in which the people have the right to control their own destiny. In a democracy the people have the final authority, they have the right to make or at least influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. The term itself comes from the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratos, meaning "authority."
The U.S. trade union movement was founded upon the principles of democracy. The AFL-CIO Ethical Practices Code states: Freedom and democracy are the essential attributes of our movement. Labor organizations lacking these attributes ... are unions in name only. Authoritarian control ... is contrary to the spirit, the traditions and the principles which should always guide and govern our movement.
Democracy is about the people and their power. The power or authority exercised in a democracy is derived, directly or indirectly, from the people in one of two forms:
Direct democracy: This is where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions. In countries and large organizations, direct democracy is rarely utilized.
Representative democracy: This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership accountability.
There are those who argue that direct democracy makes it exceedingly difficult to arrive at a broad base of consensus on issues, and that in an entity of any meaningful size, direct democracy cannot run efficiently or effectively for the good of all. On the other hand, there are those who argue that representative democracy eventually degenerates into a few people grabbing all the power and making decisions that advance their goals and interests at the expense of those they represent. Like most everything in this world, democracy is not perfect and there are merits to both arguments. -
CRITERIA FOR A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
According to Professor Dahl, it is possible to identify some criteria that a process for governing an association would have to have in order to satisfy the requirement that all the members are equally entitled to participate in the associationÂ’s decisions about its policies. Professor Dahl believes there are at least five standards which can be used to determine if an organization is democratic.
Effective Participation: Before a policy that impacts the members is adopted, all the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other members as to what the policy should be.
Voting Equality: When the moment arrives when a decision about such policy will finally be made, every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote and all votes must be counted as equal.
Enlightened Understanding: Within reasonable limits as to time, each member must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant policies and their likely consequences.
Control of the Agenda: The members must have the exclusive opportunity to decide how and, if they choose, what matters are to be placed on the agenda.
Inclusion: All members must have full rights that are implied by the first four criteria listed above. -
Since the mid-1980s, events have transformed the study of democracy from an academic specialty to a subject of great general interest. Scholars and non-scholars alike have taken another look at a subject they thought they had understood. It is no longer so easy as it was, just a few years ago, to dismiss the idea of democracy as irrelevant to most people's needs and experiences. The struggle for democracy is now an important factor in practical politics around the world, and will continue to be so.
History is one way we come to grips with important ideas and phenomena. The democratic movements of the last decade have left us dissatisfied with previous explanations of the development of democracy in the context of world history. Indeed, there is hardly anything available that could be presented as a "world history of democracy."
Of course, the gap exists for a reason. To write a world history of any topic takes tremendous nerve, because one is forced to generalize about all of human experience on the basis of very uneven evidence. In the case of democracy, there is a further difficulty: "democracy" is a word that inspires strong feelings in almost everyone.
Anyone who takes democracy seriously enough to write a history of it, especially a history of democracy in all times and places, will have to meet high expectations on the part of both skeptics and would-be true believers. Readers will want a historian of democracy not only to show the use of democratic techniques in the past, or demonstrate the existence of democratic values in past societies, or trace the development of democratic institutions in recent times. The historian will have to do more: find perfect democratic societies in the past, or admit that the history of democracy is a mirage, because democracy has never existed.
Consider a single concrete incident in the light of such expectations.
London's Guildhall, for centuries the administrative center of the city, is located over the Roman amphitheater built in the time of Hadrian, between A.D. 117 and 138. Archaeologists exploring the site in 1993 found in the drainage system the bones of bulls, horses, bears, and the heads and legs of perhaps twenty human beings. These remains were the first material confirmation of a Roman practice well known from their written history and art: the slaughter of wild animals and human prisoners for the entertainment of the citizenry. The same investigations, however, showed that the arena was used for other things -- among them, voting. A bit of broken pottery with the word non (Latin for "no") scratched on it was also found. This potsherd was probably a ballot (similar pottery ballots are known from ancient Greek times) and is the one piece of evidence that the Romans used secret ballots in local elections. The same dig thus provided us with unique evidence of both the barbaric gladiatorial games and a key democratic practice.
It is easy enough to imagine readers saying, when told about the secret ballot in the arena of Roman London, What good is democracy if those who vote are the same as those who think the slaughter of human beings makes a good public spectacle? -
We could complain about the unfairness of such impossible expectations, but we acknowledge that there is a reason for them. "Democracy" is not just any word. It is a symbol of hope, and a cause for fear. It arouses strong feelings because some see democracy as a way forward to a better future for humanity, while others see it as a dangerous delusion, or a threat to their own privileges. The meaning and utility of the word "democracy" is a constant battleground, because its very use in serious discussion demands that both speaker and listener take positions on the moral basis of society and government. We thus owe our readers not only a definition of our subject -- that dangerous word "democracy" -- and a discussion of our analytical approach, but a candid presentation of our moral starting-point.
Our starting point is with the individual human being and his or her worth as an individual.
But what good is a single individual? Can an individual exist alone? No. Individuals need society -- the help of other individuals -- to survive. This undeniable fact has often been used to negate individual worth, and, further, to justify the most incredible abuse of individuals. It is often taken as self-evident that in any conflict whatever between the needs of one person and those of society as a whole, those of the individual must give way. Individuals are only members -- limbs or organs -- of Society, which is more real and of higher moral worth than they are.
This dismissal of the individual makes sense if one believes that Society is a thing, an entity, a moral actor, capable of making decisions both moral and practical. Anyone who strolls through a library and samples history, philosophy and political theory will soon find how common this belief is, even if it is seldom spelled out.
If Society is taken as the true moral actor, then unanimity is the highest social value, and almost any means of enforcing unanimity can be justified. Only utilitarian questions need be asked: Will such a tactic or technique work, or not? To produce unanimity, whatever degree of unanimity Society believes it requires, Society can do what it likes with individuals. Their freedom or even their existence is ultimately irrelevant, since they are only part of It.
The fundamental assumption, however, is false. People understand quite clearly (unless they are very well educated indeed) that "social" decisions are not made by Society, but by individuals, and that "social" decisions often benefit some individuals and penalize others. Individuals usually accept "social" decisions, for a variety of reasons, some better than others; but if they feel their interests are intolerably affected by them, they will renounce society. Believers in Society can only respond to this phenomenon by denouncing the wickedness of those who dare defy It, and by sharpening the tools of coercion.
We, on the other hand, see the problem differently. We see society not as a being (much less a god), but as the product of the cooperative efforts of individual human beings. Social interaction has practical goals and a moral dimension, but action, initiative, and decisions are all taken by individuals. Nothing is done except by individuals, acting alone or in groups. Individuals are moral actors, and responsibility for their own actions cannot be lifted from them by Society. They are equal in this regard, equal in moral worth and moral responsibility. -
This principle does not eliminate the need for cooperation -- far from it. But social cooperation is cooperation between morally equal individuals, not the subordination of members to the body of which they are mere limbs. Natural moral equality gives each individual natural rights, which should not be violated by other individuals, whether working singly or in concert with others. Only when an individual violates the natural rights of others are the others justified in curtailing the rights of the violator. The tools of coercion, in other words "government" in the widest sense, cannot be entirely abandoned, but government exists to preserve individuals -- and not just physically, but in dignity and freedom.
The subordination of governmental power to natural rights is often criticized as utopian, even in places where the quality of life has been immeasurably enhanced by a historical respect for individual rights. It is commonly said that a "culture of rights" is a selfish culture, an impractical culture, one which dooms society to disorder. Such criticisms come out of immediate fear, or eagerness to use coercion. If we care about the quality of life for ourselves and for each of those other real individuals in society, that subordination of "government" to "rights" is eminently practical. Individuals are always judging society in its dealings with them. They will often bow to coercion, but only unwillingly. It is free cooperation that brings out their best efforts. People flee a coercive environment for a free one, if it is at all possible, and if they cannot, they do their best to subvert the coercive apparatus. Is this a prescription for order and security?
Democracy is the best, the only method, by which government can be made to respect the rightful interests of the individual; it is the method by which we attempt to make free cooperation the basis of society. In this discussion, our primary definition of democracy is this practical one. All the techniques that allow decision-making to be inclusive and egalitarian, rather than exclusive and hierarchical, we call democratic. There are a variety of democratic techniques, most of them quite simple, which have been used in different times and different places far more often than is commonly realized. One of our goals is to set out the history of the use of democratic technique.
Our book is however, not just a history of techniques, because democracy is not merely a bundle of techniques. It is also a goal, based on the moral position of individual worth and equality. The goal of democratic practice is a free society, in which power is shared by morally equal individuals, and where each person is in fact treated as a worthwhile being, free to be a diverse individual rather than a mere unit in a unanimous whole. Such a society cannot come into being unless democratic techniques are used systematically and thoroughly. Only then will individuals be able to protect their rightful interests, only then will free cooperation rather than coercion be the norm. A society informed by such values and structured through such techniques is a democratic society -- its virtues depend upon, but go beyond the purely political ones.