The notion of democracy has evolved considerably over time. Throughout history, one can find evidence of direct democracy, in whichcommunities make decisions throughpopular assembly. Today, thedominant form of democracy is representative democracy, where citizens electgovernment officials to govern on their behalf such as in aparliamentary orpresidential democracy. In the common variant ofliberal democracy, the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but aconstitution andsupreme court limit the majority and protect theminority—usually through securing the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, such asfreedom of speech or freedom of association.[7][8]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC inGreek city-states, notablyClassical Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast toaristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία,aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".[9] In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship was initially restricted to an elite class, which was later extended to all adult citizens. In most modern democracies, this was achieved through thesuffrage movements of the 19th and 20thcenturies.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government wherepower is not vested in thegeneral population of astate, such asauthoritarian systems. Historically a rare and vulnerable form of government,[10] democratic systems of government have become more prevalent since the 19th century, in particular with variouswaves of democratization.[11] Democracy garners considerable legitimacy in the modern world,[12] as public opinion across regions tends to strongly favor democratic systems of government relative to alternatives,[13][14] and as even authoritarian states try to present themselves as democratic.[15][16] According to theV-Dem Democracy indices andThe Economist Democracy Index, less than half the world's population lives in a democracy as of 2022[update].[17][18]
Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,[1][8] no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy.[19]Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people and that the people have a right to rule".[20] One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.[21]
Democratic principles are reflected in all eligible citizens beingequal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.[22] For example, in arepresentative democracy, every vote has (in theory) equal weight, and the freedom of eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically enshrined in aconstitution,[23][24] while other uses of "democracy" may encompassdirect democracy, in which citizens vote on issues directly. According to theUnited Nations, democracy "provides an environment that respectshuman rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which thefreely expressed will of people is exercised."[25]
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority),political equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[26]Legal equality,political freedom andrule of law[27] are often identified by commentators as foundational characteristics for a well-functioning democracy.[19]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[33] With its emphasis on notions ofsocial contract and thecollective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of politicalcollectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say inlawmaking.[34]
Republics, though often popularly associated with democracy because of the shared principle of rule byconsent of the governed, are not necessarily democracies, asrepublicanism does not specifyhow the people are to rule.[35]Classically the term "republic" encompassed both democracies andaristocracies.[36][37] In a modern sense the republican form of government is a form of government without amonarch. Because of this, democracies can be republics orconstitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.
Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history,[39] but up until the nineteenth century, major political figures have largely opposed democracy.[40] Republican theorists linked democracy to small size: as political units grew in size, the likelihood increased that the government would turn despotic.[10][41] At the same time, small political units were vulnerable to conquest.[10]Montesquieu wrote, "If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it is large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection."[42] According to Johns Hopkins University political scientistDaniel Deudney, the creation of the United States, with its large size and its system of checks and balances, was a solution to the dual problems of size.[10][43] Forms of democracy occurred organically in societies around the world that had no contact with each other.[44][45]
The termdemocracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state ofAthens duringclassical antiquity.[46][47] The word comes fromdêmos '(common) people' andkrátos 'force/might'.[48] UnderCleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in the sixth-century BC (508–507 BC) was established in Athens. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father ofAthenian democracy".[49] The first attested use of the word democracy is found in prose works of the 430s BC, such asHerodotus'Histories, but its usage was older by several decades, as two Athenians born in the 470s were named Democrates, a new political name—likely in support of democracy—given at a time of debates over constitutional issues in Athens.Aeschylus also strongly alludes to the word in his playThe Suppliants, staged in c.463 BC, where he mentions "the demos's ruling hand" [demou kratousa cheir]. Before that time, the word used to define the new political system of Cleisthenes was probablyisonomia, meaning political equality.[50]
Athenian democracy took the form of direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: therandom selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[51] and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens.[52] All eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι /métoikoi), and youths below the age of military service.[53][54][contradictory] Effectively, only 1 in 4 residents in Athens qualified as citizens. Owning land was not a requirement for citizenship.[55] The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns.[56]
Athenian democracy was not onlydirect in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also themost direct in the sense that the people through the assembly,boule and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[57] Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word for "rights"[58]), those who were citizens of Athens enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.[59]
Range voting appeared inSparta as early as 700 BC. TheSpartan ecclesia was an assembly of the people, held once a month, in which every male citizen of at least 20 years of age could participate. In the assembly, Spartans elected leaders and cast votes by range voting and shouting (the vote is then decided on how loudly the crowd shouts).Aristotle called this "childish", as compared with the stone voting ballots used by the Athenian citizenry. Sparta adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any biased voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in the early democratic elections.[60]
Statue ofAthena, the patron goddess ofAthens, in front of theAustrian Parliament Building. Athena has been used as an international symbol of freedom and democracy since at least the late eighteenth century.[61]
Even though theRoman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system ofweighted voting, so most high officials, including members of theSenate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[62] In addition, theoverthrow of the Roman Kingdom was the first case in the Western world of a polity being formed with the explicit purpose of being arepublic, although it did not have much of a democracy. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries.[63]
Other cultures, such as theIroquois in the Americas also developed a form of democratic society between 1450 and 1660 (and possibly in 1142[67]), well before contact with the Europeans. This democracy continues to the present day and is the world's oldest standing representative democracy.[68][69]
While most regions inEurope during theMiddle Ages were ruled byclergy orfeudal lords, there existed various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the population. InScandinavia, bodies known asthings consisted of freemen presided by alawspeaker. These deliberative bodies were responsible for settling political questions, and variants included theAlthing inIceland and theLøgting in theFaeroe Islands.[70][71] Theveche, found inEastern Europe, was a similar body to the Scandinavian thing. In the RomanCatholic Church, thepope has been elected by apapal conclave composed of cardinals since 1059. The first documented parliamentary body in Europe was theCortes of León. Established byAlfonso IX in 1188, the Cortes had authority over setting taxation, foreign affairs and legislating, though the exact nature of its role remains disputed.[72] TheRepublic of Ragusa, established in 1358 and centered around the city ofDubrovnik, provided representation and voting rights to its male aristocracy only. Various Italian city-states and polities had republic forms of government. For instance, theRepublic of Florence, established in 1115, was led by theSignoria whose members were chosen bysortition. In the 10th–15th centuryFrisia, a distinctly non-feudal society, the right to vote on local matters and on county officials was based on land size. TheKouroukan Fouga divided theMali Empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called theGbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar to aconstitutional monarchy than ademocratic republic.[73][74]
TheParliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written intoMagna Carta (1215), which explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects and implicitly supported what became the English writ ofhabeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with the right to appeal.[75][76] The first representative national assembly inEngland wasSimon de Montfort's Parliament in 1265.[77][78] The emergence ofpetitioning is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. However, the power to call parliament remained at the pleasure of the monarch.[79]
Studies have linked the emergence of parliamentary institutions in Europe during the medieval period to urban agglomeration and the creation of new classes, such as artisans,[80] as well as the presence of nobility and religious elites.[81] Scholars have also linked the emergence of representative government to Europe's relative political fragmentation.[82] Political scientistDavid Stasavage links the fragmentation of Europe, and its subsequent democratization, to the manner in which the Roman Empire collapsed: Roman territory was conquered by small fragmented groups of Germanic tribes, thus leading to the creation of small political units where rulers were relatively weak and needed the consent of the governed to ward off foreign threats.[83]
InPoland,noble democracy was characterized by an increase in the activity of the middlenobility, which wanted to increase their share in exercising power at the expense of the magnates. Magnates dominated the most important offices in the state (secular and ecclesiastical) and sat on the royal council, later the senate. The growing importance of the middle nobility had an impact on the establishment of the institution of the landsejmik (local assembly), which subsequently obtained more rights. During the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth century, sejmiks received more and more power and became the most important institutions of local power. In 1454,Casimir IV Jagiellon granted the sejmiks the right to decide on taxes and to convene a mass mobilization in theNieszawa Statutes. He also pledged not to create new laws without their consent.[84]
In 17th century England, there wasrenewed interest in Magna Carta.[85] The Parliament of England passed thePetition of Right in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects. TheEnglish Civil War (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament,[86][87] during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during thePutney Debates of 1647.[88] Subsequently,the Protectorate (1653–59) and theEnglish Restoration (1660) restored more autocratic rule, although Parliament passed theHabeas Corpus Act in 1679 which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. After theGlorious Revolution of 1688, theBill of Rights was enacted in 1689 which codified certain rights and liberties and is still in effect. The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of Europe at the time,royal absolutism would not prevail.[89][90] Economic historiansDouglass North andBarry Weingast have characterized the institutions implemented in the Glorious Revolution as a resounding success in terms of restraining the government and ensuring protection for property rights.[91]
Renewed interest in the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century prompted the growth ofpolitical philosophy on the British Isles.Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to articulate a detailedsocial contract theory. Writing in theLeviathan (1651), Hobbes theorized that individuals living in thestate of nature led lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" and constantly waged awar of all against all. In order to prevent the occurrence of an anarchic state of nature, Hobbes reasoned that individuals ceded their rights to a strong, authoritarian power. In other words, Hobbes advocated for an absolute monarchy which, in his opinion, was the best form of government. Later, philosopher and physicianJohn Locke would posit a different interpretation of social contract theory. Writing in hisTwo Treatises of Government (1689), Locke posited that all individuals possessed the inalienable rights to life, liberty and estate (property).[92] According to Locke, individuals would voluntarily come together to form a state for the purposes of defending their rights. Particularly important for Locke were property rights, whose protection Locke deemed to be a government's primary purpose.[93] Furthermore, Locke asserted that governments werelegitimate only if they held theconsent of the governed. For Locke, citizens had theright to revolt against a government that acted against their interest or became tyrannical. Although they were not widely read during his lifetime, Locke's works are considered the founding documents ofliberal thought and profoundly influenced the leaders of theAmerican Revolution and later theFrench Revolution.[94] His liberal democratic framework of governance remains the preeminent form of democracy in the world.
In the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th and 17th centuries, theCossack Hetmanate andZaporizhian Sich, the holder of the highest post ofHetman was elected by the representatives from the country's districts.
In North America, representative government began inJamestown, Virginia, with the election of theHouse of Burgesses (forerunner of theVirginia General Assembly) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic;[95] although these local assemblies had some small amounts of devolved power, the ultimate authority was held by the Crown and the English Parliament. ThePuritans (Pilgrim Fathers),Baptists, andQuakers who founded these colonies applied the democratic organisation of their congregations also to the administration of their communities in worldly matters.[96][97][98]
During theAge of Liberty in Sweden (1718–1772),civil rights were expanded and power shifted from the monarch to parliament.[102] The taxed peasantry was represented in parliament, although with little influence, but commoners without taxed property had no suffrage.
The creation of the short-livedCorsican Republic in 1755 was an early attempt to adopt a democraticconstitution (all men and women above age of 25 could vote).[103] ThisCorsican Constitution was the first based onEnlightenment principles and includedfemale suffrage, something that was not included in most other democracies until the 20th century.
Colonial America had similar property qualifications as Britain, and in the period before 1776 the abundance and availability of land meant that large numbers of colonists met such requirements with at least 60 per cent of adult white males able to vote.[104] The great majority of white men were farmers who met the property ownership or taxpaying requirements. With few exceptions, no blacks or women could vote.Vermont, which, on declaring independence of Great Britain in 1777, adopted a constitution modelled on Pennsylvania's citizenship and democratic suffrage for males with or without property.[105] TheUnited States Constitution of 1787 is the oldest surviving, still active, governmentalcodified constitution. The Constitution provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties, but did not endslavery nor extendvoting rights in the United States, instead leaving the issue of suffrage to the individual states.[106] Generally, states limited suffrage to white male property owners and taxpayers.[107] At the time of the firstPresidential election in 1789, about 6% of the population was eligible to vote.[108] TheNaturalization Act of 1790 limited U.S. citizenship to whites only.[109] TheBill of Rights in 1791 set limits on government power to protect personal freedoms but had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after ratification.[110]
In 1789,Revolutionary France adopted theDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, theNational Convention was elected by all men in 1792.[111] ThePolish-Lithuanian Constitution of 3 May 1791 sought to implement a more effectiveconstitutional monarchy, introduced political equality between townspeople and nobility, and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, mitigating the worst abuses ofserfdom. In force for less than 19 months, it was declared null and void by theGrodno Sejm that met in 1793.[112][113] Nonetheless, the 1791 Constitution helped keep alive Polish aspirations for the eventual restoration of the country's sovereignty over a century later.
In the United States, the1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states. Voter turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of the adult white male population in the1840 presidential election.[114] North Carolina was the last state to abolish property qualification in 1856 resulting in a close approximation to universal white male suffrage (however tax-paying requirements remained in five states in 1860 and survived in two states until the 20th century).[115][116][117] In the1860 United States census, the slave population had grown to four million,[118] and inReconstruction after the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were passed: the13th Amendment (1865) that ended slavery; the14th Amendment (1869) that gave black people citizenship, and the15th Amendment (1870) that gave black males a nominal right to vote.[119][120][nb 1] Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after thecivil rights movement gained passage by the US Congress of theVoting Rights Act of 1965.[121][122]
In 1876, the Ottoman Empire transitioned from anabsolute monarchy to a constitutional one, and held two elections the next year to elect members to her newly formed parliament.[125] Provisional Electoral Regulations were issued, stating that the elected members of the Provincial Administrative Councils would elect members to the firstParliament. Later that year, a new constitution was promulgated, which provided for abicameral Parliament with aSenate appointed bythe Sultan and a popularly electedChamber of Deputies. Only men above the age of 30 who were competent inTurkish and had full civil rights were allowed to stand for election. Reasons for disqualification included holding dual citizenship, being employed by a foreign government, being bankrupt, employed as a servant, or having "notoriety for ill deeds". Full universal suffrage was achieved in 1934.[126]
In 1893, the self-governing colonyNew Zealand became the first country in the world (except for the short-lived 18th-century Corsican Republic) to establish activeuniversal suffrage by recognizing women as having the right to vote.[127]
The number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher onPolity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy[needs update]
20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting from wars, revolutions,decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances.[11] Global waves of "democratic regression" reversing democratization, have also occurred in the 1920s and 30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the 2010s.[128][129]
Painting depicting the opening of the first Australian Parliament in 1901, one of the events that formed part of thefirst wave of democracy in the early 20th century
World War I and the dissolution of the autocraticOttoman andAustro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democratic movements flourished andwomen's suffrage advanced, but theGreat Depression brought disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships.Fascism and dictatorships flourished inNazi Germany,Italy,Spain andPortugal, as well as non-democratic governments in theBaltics, theBalkans,Brazil,Cuba,China, andJapan, among others.[130]
The war was followed bydecolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[132] Countries that were once part of theBritish Empire often adopted the BritishWestminster system.[133][134]
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the world's populations lived in nominal democracies that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in"Communist" states and the former colonies). A subsequent wave ofdemocratisation brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many states, dubbed "third wave of democracy". Portugal, Spain, and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the 1970s and 1980s.[nb 2] This was followed by countries inEast andSouth Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to thecollapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of theCold War, and the democratisation andliberalisation of the formerEastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now either part of theEuropean Union orcandidate states. In 1986, after the toppling of the most prominent Asian dictatorship, the only democratic state of its kind at the time emerged in thePhilippines with the rise ofCorazon Aquino, who would later be known as the mother ofAsian democracy.
Corazon Aquino taking the Oath of Office, becoming the first female president in Asia
According toFreedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[136] According toWorld Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 per cent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 per cent of the global population.[137] Also in 2007 theUnited Nations declared 15 September theInternational Day of Democracy.[138]
Many countries reduced theirvoting age to 18 years; the major democracies began to do so in the 1970s starting in Western Europe and North America.[139][failed verification][140][141] Most electoral democracies continue to exclude those younger than 18 from voting.[142] The voting age has been lowered to 16 for national elections in a number of countries, including Brazil, Austria, Cuba, and Nicaragua. In California, a 2004 proposal to permit a quarter vote at 14 and a half vote at 16 was ultimately defeated. In 2008, the German parliament proposed but shelved a bill that would grant the vote to each citizen at birth, to be used by a parent until the child claims it for themselves.
According to Freedom House, starting in 2005, there have been 17 consecutive years in which declines in political rights and civil liberties throughout the world have outnumbered improvements,[143][144] aspopulist andnationalist political forces have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under theLaw and Justice party) to the Philippines (underRodrigo Duterte).[143][128] In a Freedom House report released in 2018, Democracy Scores for most countries declined for the 12th consecutive year.[145]The Christian Science Monitor reported thatnationalist andpopulist political ideologies were gaining ground, at the expense ofrule of law, in countries like Poland, Turkey and Hungary. For example, in Poland, the Presidentappointed 27 new Supreme Court judges over legal objections from theEuropean Commission. In Turkey, thousands of judges were removed from their positions following afailed coup attempt during agovernment crackdown .[146]
Countries autocratising (red) or democratising (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[147][needs update][relevant? –discuss]
"Democratic backsliding" in the 2010s were attributed to economic inequality and social discontent,[148] personalism,[149] poor government's management of theCOVID-19 pandemic,[150][151] as well as other factors such as manipulation of civil society, "toxic polarization", foreign disinformation campaigns,[152] racism and nativism, excessive executive power,[153][154][155] and decreased power of the opposition.[156] Within English-speaking Western democracies, "protection-based" attitudes combining cultural conservatism and leftist economic attitudes were the strongest predictor of support for authoritarian modes of governance.[157]
A common view among early and renaissanceRepublican theorists was that democracy could only survive in small political communities.[160] Heeding the lessons of the Roman Republic's shift to monarchism as it grew larger or smaller, these Republican theorists held that the expansion of territory and population inevitably led to tyranny.[160] Democracy was therefore highly fragile and rare historically, as it could only survive in small political units, which due to their size were vulnerable to conquest by larger political units.[160]Montesquieu famously said, "if a republic is small, it is destroyed by an outside force; if it is large, it is destroyed by an internal vice."[160]Rousseau asserted, "It is, therefore the natural property of small states to be governed as a republic, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch, and of large empires to be swayed by a despotic prince."[160]
The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit citizens' preferences and aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus onvoting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. Different variants of aggregative democracy exist.
According to the minimalist democracy conception, elections are a mechanism forcompetition betweenpoliticians.Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view famously in his bookCapitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[161] Contemporary proponents of minimalism includeWilliam H. Riker,Adam Przeworski,Richard Posner. According to themedian voter theorem governments will tend to produce laws and policies close to the views of the median voter with half to their left and the other half to their right.Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individuals and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 bookAn Economic Theory of Democracy.[162]
According to the theory ofdirect democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, andpopular participation can check powerful elites. Proponents view citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.
Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the termpolyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and openelections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[163] Similarly,Ronald Dworkin argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal."[164]
Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government bydeliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.[165][166][167] If the decision-makers cannot reachconsensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.Citizens assemblies are considered by many scholars as practical examples of deliberative democracy,[168][169][170] with a recentOECD report identifying citizens assemblies as an increasingly popular mechanism to involve citizens in governmental decision-making.[171]
The democracy indices differ in whether they are categorical, such as classifying countries into democracies,hybrid regimes, andautocracies,[176][177] or continuous values.[178] The qualitative nature of democracy indices enables data analytical approaches for studyingcausal mechanisms of regime transformation processes.
Democracy indices vary in their scope and the weight assigned to different aspects of democracy. These aspects include the breadth and strength of core democratic institutions, the competitiveness and inclusiveness of polyarchy, freedom of expression, governance quality, adherence to democratic norms, co-option of opposition, and other related factors, such aselectoral system manipulation,electoral fraud, and popular support of anti-democratic alternatives.[179][180][181]
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[182][183] However, if any democracy is not structured to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering theseparation of powers in its favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[184][185][186]
World's states coloured by systems ofgovernment:Parliamentary systems: Head of government is elected or nominated by and accountable to the legislature
Presidential system: Head of government (president) is popularly elected and independent of the legislature
Presidential republic
Hybrid systems:
Semi-presidential republic: Executive president is independent of the legislature; head of government is appointed by the president and is accountable to the legislature
Assembly-independent republic: Head of government (president or directory) is elected by the legislature, but is not accountable to it
The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy isdirect democracy, in which all eligible citizens have active participation in the political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives directly.[187] In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called arepresentative democracy.
ALandsgemeinde (in 2009) of thecanton of Glarus, an example of direct democracy in SwitzerlandInSwitzerland, without needing to register, every citizen receivesballot papers and information brochures for each vote (and can send it back by post). Switzerland has adirect democracy system and votes (and elections) are organised about four times a year; here, toBerne's citizen in November 2008 about 5 national, 2 cantonal, 4 municipal referendums, and 2 elections (government and parliament of the City of Berne) to take care of at the same time.
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:
Some modern democracies that are predominantly representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termedsemi-direct democracies orparticipatory democracies. Examples include Switzerland and someU.S. states, where frequent use is made ofreferendums andinitiatives.
TheSwiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy.[189] At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for areferendum to be held on any law voted by theparliament.[189] Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions (during the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums).[189] Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum.[194]
Examples include the extensive use ofreferendums in the US state ofCalifornia, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.[195]
InNew England,town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a localdirect democracy and a representative state government. For example, mostVermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political matters.[196]
The use of a lot system, a characteristic ofAthenian democracy, is a feature of some versions of direct democracies. In this system, important governmental and administrative tasks are performed by citizens picked from a lottery.[197]
Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is alsodemocratically elected then it is called a democraticrepublic.[198] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or aplurality of the votes. Most western countries have representative systems.[189]
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (orconstituency), or represent the entire electorate throughproportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such asreferendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon representative democracy,[199][200] pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms with democracy[201][202]
Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by or can be dismissed by, representatives as opposed to a "presidential rule" wherein the president is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[203][204][205][206]
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister may be dismissed by the legislature at any point in time for not meeting the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a vote of no confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the prime minister from office with majority support for dismissal.[207] In some countries, the prime minister can also call an election at any point in time, typically when the prime minister believes that they are in good favour with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies, extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important feature of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "loyal opposition". The essence of the concept is that the second largest political party (or opposition) opposes the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its democratic principles.
Presidential democracy is a system where the public elects the president through an election. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. The legislature often has limited ability to remove a president from office. Elections typically have a fixed date and are not easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.[207]
The executive usually has the responsibility to execute or implement legislation and may have the limited legislative powers, such as a veto. However, a legislative branch passes legislation and budgets. This provides some measure ofseparation of powers. In consequence, however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia.[207]
Asemi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country.[207]
In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as inFrance,China,Russia,Germany,Austria,Hungary,Italy,Greece, andEgypt). An elected person, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these countries.
Elite upper houses of legislatures, which often had lifetime or hereditary tenure, were common in many states. Over time, these either had their powers limited (as with the BritishHouse of Lords) or else became elective and remained powerful (as with theAustralian Senate).
The termrepublic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an electedhead of state, such as apresident, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditarymonarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointedhead of government such as aprime minister.[209]
TheFounding Fathers of the United States often criticiseddirect democracy, which in their view often came without the protection of a constitution enshrining inalienable rights;James Madison argued, especially inThe Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a directdemocracy from arepublic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.[210]
Professors Richard Ellis ofWillamette University and Michael Nelson ofRhodes College argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny". They conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to ensure that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be trampled by majorities."[211] What was critical to American values,John Adams insisted,[212] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the US Constitution,Elizabeth Willing Powel[213] asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[214]
A liberal democracy is a representative democracy which enshrines aliberalpolitical philosophy, where the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to therule of law, moderated by a constitution or laws such as the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and constrained on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.[215]
WithinMarxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which is referred to as parliamentary democracy because of its centralised nature. Because of orthodox Marxists' desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism,Marxists,Leninists, andTrotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes calledsoviets). This system can begin with workplace democracy and ultimately manifests itself ascouncil democracy.[219][220]
Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that amajority-rule is tyrannic or not. To many anarchists, the only form of democracy considered acceptable is direct democracy.Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[221] However,anarcho-communistMurray Bookchin criticisedindividualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[222] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[223]
Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt-in favour of a non-majoritarian form ofconsensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[224]
Sortition is the process of choosing decision-making bodies via a random selection. These bodies can be more representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large than an elected legislature or other decision-maker. The technique was in widespread use inAthenian Democracy andRenaissance Florence[225] and is still used in modernjury selection andcitizens' assemblies.
Consociational democracy, also calledconsociationalism, is a form of democracy based on power-sharing formula between elites representing the social groups within the society. In 1969, Arendt Lijphart argued this would stabilize democracies with factions.[226] A consociational democracy allows for simultaneous majority votes in two or more ethno-religious constituencies, and policies are enacted only if they gain majority support from both or all of them. TheQualified majority voting rule inEuropean Council of Ministers is a consociational democracy approach for supranational democracies. This system inTreaty of Rome allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. A consociational democracy requires consensus of representatives, while consensus democracy requires consensus of electorate.[needs update]
The termethnic democracy, as used by somepolitical scientists, purports to describe a governance system that combines a structured ethnic dominance with democratic, political and civil rights for all. Both the dominantethnic group—typically anethnic majority—and theminority ethnic groups have citizenship and are able to fully participate in the political process. However, critics of the "ethnic democracy" model argue it is a contradiction in terms, and thus conceptually inadequate or confusing; these critics allege that purported ethnic democracies, most notablyIsrael, are not democratic at all, or are at best a sort ofsemi-democracy.[234]
Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims fordirect democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated,economic democracy in astateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e.self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopherTakis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the journalDemocracy & Nature and its successorThe International Journal of Inclusive Democracy.[235][236][237][238][239][240]
Aparpolity or participatory polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by anested council structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision-making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council.
A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on thetyranny of the majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates may vote differently from how their sending council might wish but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via votes of lower-level councils, however, not everything is a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with aparticipatory economy.
Procedural democracy or proceduralist democracy, proceduralism or hollow democracy[241] is a term used to denote the particular procedures, such as regularelections based onuniversal suffrage, that produce an electorally-legitimated government.[242][243][244] Procedural democracy, with its centering of electoral processes as the basis of democratic legitimacy, is often contrasted withsubstantive or participatory democracy, which centers the equal participation of all groups in society in the political process as the basis of legitimacy.[243][245]
Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Radical democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision-making processes.[246]
Religious democracy[247] is a form of democracy where thevalues of a particular religion orstate religion are preferred. The term applies to all democratic countries in which religion is incorporated into the form of government.
Cosmopolitan democracy, also known asglobal democracy orworld federalism, is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them.[248]
According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existinginternational organisations, e.g., theUnited Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as aWorld Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.
Cosmopolitan democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[249] writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnistGeorge Monbiot, and professorsDavid Held andDaniele Archibugi.[250] The creation of theInternational Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.
Creative democracy is advocated by American philosopherJohn Dewey. The main idea about creative democracy is that democracy encourages individual capacity building and the interaction among the society. Dewey argues that democracy is a way of life in his work of "Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us"[251] and an experience built on faith in human nature, faith in human beings, and faith in working with others. Democracy, in Dewey's view, is amoral ideal requiring actual effort and work by people; it is not an institutional concept that exists outside of ourselves. "The task of democracy", Dewey concludes, "is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute".
Guided democracy is a form of democracy that incorporates regular popular elections, but which often carefully "guides" the choices offered to the electorate in a manner that may reduce the ability of the electorate to truly determine the type of government exercised over them. Such democracies typically have only one central authority which is often not subject to meaningful public review by any other governmental authority. Russian-style democracy has often been referred to as a "guided democracy".[252] Russian politicians have referred to their government as having only one center of power/ authority, as opposed to most other forms of democracy which usually attempt to incorporate two or more naturally competing sources of authority within the same government.[253]
Shareholder democracy is a concept relating to the governance of corporations by their shareholders. In the United States, shareholders are typically granted voting rights according to theone share, one vote principle. Shareholders may vote annually to elect the company'sboard of directors, who themselves may choose the company'sexecutives. The shareholder democracy framework may be inaccurate for companies which have differentclasses of stock that further alter the distribution of voting rights.
Condorcet's jury theorem is logical proof that if each decision-maker has a better than chance probability of making the right decision, then having the largest number of decision-makers, i.e. a democracy, will result in the best decisions. This has also been argued by theories ofthe wisdom of the crowd. Democracy tends to improveconflict resolution.[257]
A 2019 study by Acemoglu and others estimated that countries switching to democratic from authoritarian rule had on average a 20% higher GDP after 25 years than if they had remained authoritarian. The study examined 122 transitions to democracy and 71 transitions to authoritarian rule, occurring from 1960 to 2010.[258] Acemoglu said this was because democracies tended to invest more in health care and human capital, and reduce special treatment of regime allies.[259]
A 2023 study analyzed the long-term effects of democracy on economic prosperity using new data on GDP per capita and democracy for a dataset between 1789 and 2019. The results indicate that democracy substantially increases economic development.[260]
A democratic transition describes a phase in a country'spolitical system, often created as a result of an incomplete change from anauthoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).[261][262]
Several philosophers and researchers have outlined historical and social factors seen as supporting the evolution of democracy. Other commentators have mentioned the influence of economic development.[265] In a related theory,Ronald Inglehart suggests that improved living-standards in modern developed countries can convince people that they can take their basic survival for granted, leading to increased emphasis onself-expression values, which correlates closely with democracy.[266][267]
Douglas M. Gibler and Andrew Owsiak in their study argued about the importance of peace and stable borders for the development of democracy. It has often been assumed thatdemocracy causes peace, but this study shows that, historically, peace has almost always predated the establishment of democracy.[268]
Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:[269][270] Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain and use.[271] By the 1800s, guns were the best personal weapons available, and in the United States of America (already nominally democratic), almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments could not do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.[271] Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and democracy.[272]
a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information-processing)
an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence.
Evidence consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Statistical analyses have challengedmodernisation theory by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal.[276] In fact, empirical evidence shows that economic growth and education may not lead to increased demand for democratization as modernization theory suggests: historically, most countries attained high levels of access to primary education well before transitioning to democracy.[277] Rather than acting as a catalyst for democratization, in some situations education provision may instead be used by non-democratic regimes to indoctrinate their subjects and strengthen their power.[277]
The assumed link between education and economic growth is called into question when analyzing empirical evidence. Across different countries, the correlation between education attainment and math test scores is very weak (.07). A similarly weak relationship exists between per-pupil expenditures and math competency (.26). Additionally, historical evidence suggests that average human capital (measured using literacy rates) of the masses does not explain the onset of industrialization in France from 1750 to 1850 despite arguments to the contrary.[278] Together, these findings show that education does not always promote human capital and economic growth as is generally argued to be the case. Instead, the evidence implies that education provision often falls short of its expressed goals, or, alternatively, that political actors use education to promote goals other than economic growth and development.
Some scholars have searched for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic.[279][280]
An example of this is the disease environment. Places with different mortality rates had different populations and productivity levels around the world. For example, in Africa, thetsetse fly—which afflicts humans and livestock—reduced the ability of Africans to plough the land. This made Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was less concentrated.[281] This also affected the colonial institutions European countries established in Africa.[282] Whether colonial settlers could live or not in a place made them develop different institutions which led to different economic and social paths. This also affected the distribution of power and the collective actions people could take. As a result, some African countries ended up having democracies and othersautocracies.
An example of geographical determinants for democracy is having access to coastal areas and rivers. This natural endowment has a positive relation with economic development thanks to the benefits oftrade.[283] Trade brought economic development, which in turn, broadened power. Rulers wanting to increase revenues had to protect property-rights to create incentives for people to invest. As more people had more power, more concessions had to be made by the ruler and in many[quantify] places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society moving the balance of political power.[284]
Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully realised, democracy may be developed automatically in the act of striving for democracy:
The peasant in the fable, when on his deathbed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the fable may well symbolise democracy.[285]
Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government from a non-democratic state is typically brought by peaceful or violentdemocratic revolution.
Steven Levitsky says: “It's not up to voters to defend a democracy. That’s asking far, far too much of voters, to cast their ballot on the basis of some set of abstract principles or procedures. With the exception of a handful of cases, voters never, ever — in any society, in any culture — prioritize democracy over all else. Individual voters worry about much more mundane things, as is their right. It is up to élites and institutions to protect democracy — not voters.”[299]
Royal coup, in which a monarch not normally involved in government seizes all power. For example, the6 January Dictatorship, begun in 1929 when KingAlexander I of Yugoslavia dismissed parliament and started ruling by decree.[301]
Criticism has been a key part of democracy, its functions, and its development throughout history. Some critics call upon the constitutional regime to be true to its own highestprinciples; others reject the values promoted byconstitutional democracy.[303]
Plato famously opposed democracy, arguing for a 'government of the best qualified'.James Madison extensively studied the historic attempts at and arguments on democracy in his preparation for theConstitutional Convention, andWinston Churchill remarked that "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."[304]
Critics of democracy have often tried to highlight democracy's inconsistencies,paradoxes, and limits by contrasting it with other forms of government, such asepistocracy orlottocracy. They have characterized most modern democracies as democraticpolyarchies[305] and democraticaristocracies.[306] They have identifiedfascist moments in modern democracies. They have termed the societies produced by modern democracies asneo-feudal[307] and have contrasted democracy with fascism,anarcho-capitalism,theocracy, andabsolute monarchy.
The theory of democracy relies on the implicit assumption that voters are well informed aboutsocial issues, policies, and candidates so that they can make a truly informed decision. Since the late 20th century there has been a growing concern that voters may be poorly informed due to thenews media's focusing more on entertainment and gossip and less on serious journalistic research on political issues.[308][309]
The media professors Michael Gurevitch andJay Blumler have proposed a number of functions that the mass media are expected to fulfill in a democracy:[310]
Platforms for an intelligible and illuminating advocacy
Dialogue across a diverse range of views
Mechanisms for holding officials to account for how they have exercised power
Incentives for citizens to learn, choose, and become involved
A principled resistance to the efforts of forces outside the media to subvert their independence, integrity, and ability to serve the audience
A sense of respect for the audience member, as potentially concerned and able to make sense of his or her political environment
This proposal has inspired a lot of discussions over whether the news media are actually fulfilling the requirements that a well functioning democracy requires.[311]Commercial mass media are generally not accountable to anybody but their owners, and they have no obligation to serve a democratic function.[311][312] They are controlled mainly by economicmarket forces. Fierce economic competition may force the mass media to divert themselves from any democratic ideals and focus entirely on how to survive the competition.[313][314]
Thetabloidization and popularization of the news media is seen in an increasing focus on human examples rather than statistics and principles. There is more focus on politicians as personalities and less focus on political issues in the popular media. Election campaigns are covered more ashorse races and less as debates about ideologies and issues. The dominating media focus onspin, conflict, and competitive strategies has made voters perceive the politicians as egoists rather than idealists. This fosters mistrust and acynical attitude to politics, lesscivic engagement, and less interest in voting.[315][316][317]The ability to find effective political solutions to social problems is hampered when problems tend to be blamed on individuals rather than onstructural causes.[316]This person-centered focus may have far-reaching consequences not only for domestic problems but also for foreign policy when international conflicts are blamed on foreign heads of state rather than on political and economic structures.[318][319]A strong media focus on fear andterrorism has allowed military logic to penetrate public institutions, leading to increasedsurveillance and the erosion ofcivil rights.[320]
The responsiveness[321] andaccountability of the democratic system is compromised when lack of access to substantive, diverse, and undistorted information is handicapping the citizens' capability of evaluating the political process.[312][317]The fast pace and trivialization in the competitive news media isdumbing down the political debate. Thorough and balanced investigation of complex political issues does not fit into this format. The political communication is characterized by short time horizons, short slogans, simple explanations, and simple solutions. This is conducive to politicalpopulism rather than serious deliberation.[312][320]
Commercial mass media are often differentiated along the political spectrum so that people can hear mainly opinions that they already agree with. Too much controversy and diverse opinions are not always profitable for the commercial news media.[322]Political polarization is emerging when different people read different news and watch different TV channels. This polarization has been worsened by the emergence of thesocial media that allow people to communicate mainly with groups of like-minded people, the so-calledecho chambers.[323]Extreme political polarization may undermine the trust in democratic institutions, leading to erosion ofcivil rights andfree speech and in some cases even reversion toautocracy.[324]
Many media scholars have discussed non-commercial news media withpublic service obligations as a means to improve the democratic process by providing the kind of political contents that a free market does not provide.[325][326]TheWorld Bank has recommended public service broadcasting in order to strengthen democracy indeveloping countries. These broadcasting services should be accountable to an independent regulatory body that is adequately protected from interference from political and economic interests.[327]Public service media have an obligation to provide reliable information to voters. Many countries have publicly funded radio and television stations with public service obligations, especially in Europe and Japan,[328] while such media are weak or non-existent in other countries including the US.[329]Several studies have shown that the stronger the dominance of commercial broadcast media over public service media, the less the amount of policy-relevant information in the media and the more focus onhorse race journalism, personalities, and the pecadillos of politicians. Public service broadcasters are characterized by more policy-relevant information and more respect forjournalistic norms andimpartiality than the commercial media. However, the trend ofderegulation has put the public service model under increased pressure from competition with commercial media.[328][330][331]
The emergence of theinternet and thesocial media has profoundly altered the conditions for political communication. The social media have given ordinary citizens easy access to voice their opinion and share information while bypassing thefilters of the large news media. This is often seen as an advantage for democracy.[332] The new possibilities for communication have fundamentally changed the waysocial movements andprotest movements operate and organize. The internet and social media have provided powerful new tools for democracy movements in developing countries andemerging democracies, enabling them to bypasscensorship, voice their opinions, and organize protests.[333][334]
A serious problem with the social media is that they have no truth filters. The established news media have to guard their reputation as trustworthy, while ordinary citizens may post unreliable information.[333] In fact, studies show that false stories are going moreviral than true stories.[335][336]The proliferation of false stories andconspiracy theories may undermine public trust in the political system and public officials.[336][324]
Reliable information sources are essential for the democratic process. Less democratic governments rely heavily oncensorship,propaganda, andmisinformation in order to stay in power, while independent sources of information are able to undermine their legitimacy.[337]
^TheFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868 altered the way each state is represented in theHouse of Representatives. It counted all residents for apportionment including slaves, overriding thethree-fifths compromise, and reduced a state's apportionment if it wrongfully denied males over the age of 21 the right to vote; however, this was not enforced in practice. Some poor white men remained excluded at least until the passage of theVoting Rights Act of 1965. For state elections, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 inHarper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that all state poll taxes were unconstitutional as violating theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This removed a burden on the poor.
^Economic Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, 2022, p. 4: "According to our measure of democracy, less than half (45.7%) of the world's population now live in a democracy of some sort, a significant decline from 2020 (49.4%)."
^abStaff writer (22 August 2007)."Liberty and justice for some".The Economist.Economist Group.Democracy can be seen as a set of practices and principles that institutionalise and thus ultimately protect freedom. Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of democracy include a government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due process and political pluralism.
^Popper, Karl (23 April 1988). "The open society and its enemies revisited",The Economist (2016 reprint).
^Dahl, Robert A.; Shapiro, Ian; Cheibub, José Antônio (2003).The democracy sourcebook. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.ISBN978-0-262-54147-3.Details.
^Hénaff, Marcel; Strong, Tracy B. (2001).Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.ISBN978-0-8166-3388-3.
^Nations, United."Democracy". United Nations. Retrieved17 August 2023.
^Snyder, Richard; Samuels, David (2006), "Devaluing the vote in Latin America", in Diamond, Larry; Plattner, Marc F. (eds.),Electoral systems and democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 168,ISBN978-0-8018-8475-7.
^R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith,The Making of the West, Peoples and Cultures, A Concise History, Volume I: To 1740 (Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 44.
^Kurt A. Raaflaub,Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, pp. 108, 109.
^Davies, John K. (1977). "Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives".The Classical Journal.73 (2):105–121.ISSN0009-8353.JSTOR3296866.
^Susan Lape,Reproducing Athens: Menander's Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City, Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 4,ISBN978-1-4008-2591-2
^Lightfoot, Sheryl R. (2021). "Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and Negotiated Sovereignty".European Journal of International Relations.27 (4): 978.doi:10.1177/13540661211024713.ISSN1354-0661.S2CID237710260.
^Communications."Government".Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Retrieved19 May 2022.
^"Magna Carta: an introduction". The British Library. Archived fromthe original on 23 April 2021. Retrieved28 January 2015.Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the foundation of democracy in England. ...Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III (in 1216, 1217 and 1225), and the text of the 1225 version was entered into the statute roll in 1297. ...The 1225 version of Magna Carta had been granted explicitly in return for a payment of tax by the whole kingdom, and this paved the way for the first summons of Parliament in 1265, to approve the granting of taxation.
^Abramson, Scott F.; Boix, Carles (2019). "Endogenous Parliaments: The Domestic and International Roots of Long-Term Economic Growth and Executive Constraints in Europe".International Organization.73 (4):793–837.doi:10.1017/S0020818319000286.ISSN0020-8183.S2CID211428630.
^Møller, Jørgen (2014). "Why Europe Avoided Hegemony: A Historical Perspective on the Balance of Power".International Studies Quarterly.58 (4):660–670.doi:10.1111/isqu.12153.
^ab"Britain's unwritten constitution". British Library. Archived fromthe original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved27 November 2015.The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'.
^"Constitutionalism: America & Beyond". Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State. Archived fromthe original on 24 October 2014. Retrieved30 October 2014.The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism). This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The "rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.
^North, Douglass C.; Weingast, Barry R. (1989). "Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England".The Journal of Economic History.49 (4):803–832.doi:10.1017/S0022050700009451.ISSN1471-6372.S2CID3198200.
^Allen Weinstein and David Rubel (2002),The Story of America: Freedom and Crisis from Settlement to Superpower, DK Publishing, Inc., New York,ISBN978-0-7894-8903-6, p. 61
^Clifton E. Olmstead (1960),History of Religion in theUnited States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 63–65, 74–75, 102–05, 114–15
^Chavetz, Josh (2007).Democracy's Privileged Few. Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions. Yale University Press. p. 274.
^Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sweden".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–221.
^Gregory, Desmond (1985).The ungovernable rock: a history of the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom and its role in Britain's Mediterranean strategy during the Revolutionary War, 1793–1797. London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 31.ISBN978-0-8386-3225-3.
^Norman Davies (15 May 1991).The Third of May 1791(PDF). Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 5 September 2019. Retrieved5 September 2019.
^Jan Ligeza (2017).Preambuła Prawa [The Preamble of Law] (in Polish). Polish Scientific Publishers PWN. p. 12.ISBN978-83-945455-0-5.
^William G. Shade, "The Second Party System". in Paul Kleppner, et al.Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1983) pp 77–111
^Dworkin, Ronald (2006).Is Democracy Possible Here? Princeton: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-13872-5, p. 134.
^Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2002).Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-12019-5
^Joshua Cohen, "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy Ed. James Bohman and William Rehg (The MIT Press: Cambridge) 1997, 72–73.
^Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?",Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
^Schmitter, Philippe C; Karl, Terry Lynn (1991). "What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not".Journal of Democracy.2 (3):75–88.doi:10.1353/jod.1991.0033.ISSN1086-3214.
^Beramendi, Virginia, and Jennifer Somalie. Angeyo.Direct Democracy: The International Idea Handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA, 2008. Print.
^abcdeVincent Golay and Mix et Remix,Swiss political institutions, Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008.ISBN978-2-606-01295-3.
^Niels Barmeyer,Developing Zapatista Autonomy, Chapter Three: Who is Running the Show? The Workings of Zapatista Government.
^Denham, Diana (2008).Teaching Rebellion: Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca.
^Zibechi, Raul (2013).Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces in Latin America.
^Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993–1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
^abDavid., Arter (2006).Democracy in Scandinavia : consensual, majoritarian or mixed?. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 15.ISBN9780719070464.OCLC64555175.
^Reynal-Querol, Marta (2002). "Political systems, stability and civil wars".Defence and Peace Economics.13 (6):465–483.CiteSeerX10.1.1.17.2796.doi:10.1080/10242690214332.S2CID38417520.According to our model the proportional system has a lower probability of rebellion than the majoritarian system. ... Empirically, we find that countries with proportional system has the lowest probability that groups rebel and that the more inclusive is the system, the smaller the probability of suffering a civil war.
^Emerson, Peter (2016).From Majority Rule to Inclusive Politics (1st ed.). Cham: Springer.ISBN9783319235004.OCLC948558369.Unfortunately, one of the worst democratic structures is the most ubiquitous: majority rule based on majority voting. It must be emphasised, furthermore, that these two practices are often the catalysts of division and bitterness, if not indeed violence and war.
^Daniele Archibugi & David Held, eds.,Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995; David Held,Democracy and the Global Order, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, Daniele Archibugi,The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008
^For example:Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy".American Political Science Review.53 (1):69–105.doi:10.2307/1951731.JSTOR1951731.S2CID53686238.
^Inglehart, Ronald. Welzel, ChristianModernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
^Inglehart, Ronald F. (2018).Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/9781108613880.ISBN978-1-108-61388-0.
^Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919–2001".Journal of Conflict Resolution.62 (9):1847–75.doi:10.1177/0022002717708599.S2CID158036471.
^Foreword, written by historianHarry J HoganArchived 1 September 2013 at theWayback Machine in 1982, to Quigley'sWeapons Systems and Political Stability
^see also Chester G Starr, Review ofWeapons Systems and Political Stability, American Historical Review, Feb 1984, p. 98, available atcarrollquigley.net
^Compare:Rindermann, H (2008). "Relevance of education and intelligence for the political development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty".Intelligence.36 (4):306–22.doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003.Political theory has described a positive linkage between education, cognitive ability and democracy. This assumption is confirmed by positive correlations between education, cognitive ability, and positively valued political conditions (N = 183–130). [...] It is shown that in the second half of the 20th century, education and intelligence had a strong positive impact on democracy, rule of law and political liberty independent from wealth (GDP) and chosen country sample. One possible mediator of these relationships is the attainment of higher stages of moral judgment fostered by cognitive ability, which is necessary for the function of democratic rules in society. The other mediators for citizens as well as for leaders could be the increased competence and willingness to process and seek information necessary for political decisions due to greater cognitive ability. There are also weaker and less stable reverse effects of the rule of law and political freedom on cognitive ability.
^Albertus, Michael; Menaldo, Victor (2012). "Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratisation".Comparative Politics.44 (2):151–69.doi:10.5129/001041512798838003.S2CID153949862.
^Squicciarini, Mara and Voigtländer, Nico, Knowledge Elites and Modernization: Evidence from Revolutionary France (October 2016). NBER Working Paper No. w22779, Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2861711
^Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth".Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. pp. 385–472, Sections 1 to 4.doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3.ISBN978-0-444-52041-8.
^Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth".Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. pp. 385–472, Sections 5 to 10.doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3.ISBN978-0-444-52041-8.
^abMietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials".Democratization.28 (1):161–178.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649.S2CID225475139.
^Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017)Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96.ISBN978-0-19-023487-4
^Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability".Democratization.28 (5):908–928.doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109.S2CID234870008.
^Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field".Hague Journal on the Rule of Law.11:9–36.doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2.S2CID159354232.
^Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan".Democratization.28 (1):142–160.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438.S2CID228959708.
^Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is".Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35.ISBN978-3-030-03125-1.
^Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018)."Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding".Annual Review of Political Science.21 (1):93–113.doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628.Backsliding entails deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.
^abAlan Siaroff (2009).Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics. University of Toronto Press. p. 285.ISBN978-1-4426-0012-6.
^MacChesney, Robert W (1999).Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. University of Illinois Press.
^Barnett, Steven (2002). "Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?".The Political Quarterly.73 (4):400–408.doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00494.
^Gurevitch, Michael; Blumler, Jay G. (1990). "Political Communication Systems and Democratic Values". In Lichtenberg, Judith (ed.).Democracy and the mass media: A collection of essays. Cambridge University Press. pp. 269–289.
^abBucy, Erik P.; D'Angelo, Paul (1999). "The Crisis of Political Communication: Normative Critiques of News and Democratic Processes".Communication Yearbook.22:301–339.
^abcBlumler, Jay G. (2014). "Mediatization and Democracy". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–41.
^Donges, Patrick; Jarren, Otfried (2014). "Mediatization of Organizations: Changing Parties and Interest Groups?". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–41.
^Esser, Frank (2013). "Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic". In Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc (eds.).Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 155–176.
^Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997).Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.
^abVreese, Claes H. de (2014). "Mediatization of News: The Role of Journalistic Framing". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 137–155.
^abEsser, Frank; Matthes, Jörg (2013). "Mediatization Effects on Political News, Political Actors, Political Decisions, and Political Audiences". In Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc (eds.).Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 177–201.
^Baum, Matthew A. (2003).Soft news goes to war. Public opinion and american foreign policy in the new media era. Princeton University Press.
^Altheide, David L. (2002).Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. Aldine de Gruyter.ISBN978-1-138-52143-8.
^abAltheide, David L. (2014).Media edge: Media logic and social reality. Peter Lang.
^Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2016). "The Business of News". In Witschge, Tamara; Anderson, Christopher William; Domingo, David; Hermida, Alfred (eds.).The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. Sage. pp. 51–67.
^Cushion, Stephen (2012).The Democratic Value of News: Why Public Service Media Matter. Macmillan.
^Cushion, Stephen; Franklin, Bob (2015). "Public Service Broadcasting: Markets and Vulnerable Values in Broadcast and Print Journalism". In Coleman, Stephen; Moss, Giles; Parry, Katy; Halperin, John; Ryan, Michael (eds.).Can the Media Serve Democracy?: Essays in Honour of Jay G. Blumler. Springer. pp. 65–75.
^Buckley, Steve; Duer, Kreszentia; Mendel, Toby; Siochrú, Seán Ó (2008).Broadcasting, voice, and accountability: A public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. World Bank and University of Michigan Press.
^abGunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (2000). "The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment". In Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (eds.).Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 402–448.
^Pickard, Victor (2020). "The Public Media Option: Confronting Policy Failure in an Age of Misinformation". In Bennett, W. Lance; Livingston, Steven (eds.).The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–258.
^Udris, Linards; Lucht, Jens (2014). "Mediatization at the Structural Level: Independence from Politics, Dependence on the Market". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 114–136.
^Thoday, Jon (2018). "Public Service Television and the Crisis of Content". In Freedman, Des; Goblot, Vana (eds.).A Future for Public Service Television. MIT Press. pp. 29–39.
^Schulz, Winfried (2014). "Mediatization and New Media". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 114–136.
^Voltmer, Katrin; Sorensen, Lone (2019). "Media, Power, Citizenship: The Mediatization of Democratic Change". In Voltmer, Katrin; et al. (eds.).Media, Communication and the Struggle for Democratic Change. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 35–58.
Ober, J.; Hedrick, C.W. (1996).Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern. Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-01108-0.
Raaflaub, Kurt A.; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert W (2007).Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. University of California Press.ISBN978-0-520-24562-4.
.jpg)
%2c_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
