
#REDIRECT Democracy
#REDIRECT Democracy
The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenship through a fair election. When these factors are met a government can be classified as such. This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other types. ==Etymology== The word democracy originates from the Greek language δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people," plus κρατειν meaning "to rule," and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." ==Real world meaning and definition== ===Evolution of 'democracy'=== The term 'democracy'—or more precisely, the original (Ancient Greece) version of the word—was coined in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. That state is generally seen as the earliest example of a system corresponding to some of the modern notions of democratic rule. However, many do not see ancient Athens as a democracy since only a minority had the right to vote, women, slavery#Slavery in Greece, and foreigners being excluded from the franchise. Only an estimated 16% of the total population had the right to vote. However, the ancient Athenian vote applied to making decisions directly, rather than voting for representatives as is seen with modern democracy. Over time, the meaning of 'democracy' has changed, and the modern definition has largely evolved since the 18th century, alongside the successive introduction of "democratic" systems in many nations. Freedom House argues that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that today 120 (62.5%) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies. They count 25 (19.2%) nations with restricted democratic practices in 1900 and 16 (8.3%) today. They find 19 (14.6%) constitutional monarchies in 1900 in which a constitution delineates the powers of the monarch and in which some power may have devolved to elected legislatures, and no such nations today. Other nations had and have various forms of non-democratic rule. [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html] Today, there are many Democracy (varieties), some hypothesis and some realized. ===Elections as rituals=== Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. Elections have often been used by authoritarianism regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can happen in a variety of different ways: *restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election *restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office *voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates) *or most simply through falsification of the results Historical examples of this include the Soviet Union under the Communist Party of the Soviet Union before its History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991) in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos. ===Liberal democracy=== In common usage, ''democracy'' is often understood to be the same as ''liberal democracy''. While democracy itself is a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, liberal democracy can be characterized by the incorporation of constitutional liberalism, where certain culturally subjective civil rights are protected from a simple majority vote, inversely; in illiberal democracy no such restrictions exist. Qualities of many liberal democracies include: *A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights *Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership (''See also elective rights'') *Freedom of speech, including speech, assembly and protest *Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources *Freedom of association *Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law *The right to property and privacy *Education citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities *A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society *An independent judiciary *A system of checks and balances between branches of government This definition generally comes with qualifications. The decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizenry, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting. In addition, not all citizens are generally permitted to vote. Most democratic nations extend voting rights to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. Some nations also do not permit other categories of people to vote (e.g., current or previously convicted prisoners). Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a Canadian_monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament of Canada. Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights." ===Direct versus representative democracy or 'democracy' versus 'republic'=== The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers of the United States." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to ''direct democracy'', whilst a ''representative democracy'' where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. Political conservatism and Libertarian Party (United States) debate. The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. (See ''#Tyranny of the majority'' below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure. Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchy which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchy adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchy are also not considered to be republics.) ===Socialist democracy=== Anarchism and communism (as in the ultimate stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are political theories that in theory employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves. However, all states governed by a communist party have become dictatorships and have remained as such as long as the party stayed in power. However, socialist theorists such as Tony Cliff have argued that this is the case because the countries in which Communist parties have come to power have all been countries in which the productive forces of development have not reached a level sufficient to support socialism. ==Democratic culture== For countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy, until a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government have occurred too. There are various examples, such as French Revolution or modern Uganda or Iran, of countries that have only been able to sustain democracy in a limited form until wider cultural changes occur to enable real majority rule. One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of a "loyal opposition". This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. The term means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important role that each has to play. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgment of the voters when the election is over, and transfer power peacefully accordingly. The losers are safe in the knowledge that they will not lose their lives or liberty, but can continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself. ==Proportional versus majoritarian representation== Some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority (majoritarian representation). This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional. ==Arguments for and against democracy== ===Role of political parties=== Some critics of representative democracy argue that political party mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected. ===Tyranny of the majority=== ''This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.'' Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority." This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. For example, it is possible in a democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly). Here are some examples of claimed instances in which a majority has acted controversially against the wishes of a minority in relation to specific issues: *In France, some consider current bans on personal religious symbols in public schools to be a violation of religious peoples' rights. *In the United States: **distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency. **"pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized unborn children as an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority. **the conscription early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered. *The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressive tax, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. *Recreational drug use are seen by some as a sizable minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, through War on Drugs. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote. *Society's treatment of homosexuality is also cited in this context. One example is the criminalization of gay sex in United Kingdom during the 19th century and much of the 20th century, made famous by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. *Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent. Whether this is pertinent to the dangers of modern democracies is itself a continuing matter of contention. *Adolf Hitler, who gained the largest minority vote in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since Hitler never gained a majority vote. On the other hand, democratic systems endemically, and perhaps necessarily, end up putting power into the hands of a person or faction that commands the largest minority, so the rise of Hitler can not a priori be considered irrelevant to the merits of democracy. However, the large scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies. Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, very rarely, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority. A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the "tyranny of the majority" is in any case an improvement on a "tyranny of a minority." Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them. ===Political stability=== One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence. ===Poverty=== More democracy correlates with a higher GDP per capita, a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index. However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. It has been argued that most evidence support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with the Index of Economic Freedom, increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II. (It should be added that the government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years; and that provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.) ===Wars=== The democratic peace theory claims that empirical evidence shows that democracies never or almost never make war against each other. One example is a study of all wars from 1816 to 1991 where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle and democracy was defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males. The study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM] However, this theory remains controversial in some circles and is the subject of much academic research and debate. Democracies are sometimes slow to react when in war situations, because of the bureaucratic and legislative requirements for making decisions. In a democracy, the legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced or joined, although sometimes the executive has some power to take the initiative while keeping the legislature informed. Further, if conscription is instituted, people can protest it. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory act immediately, but often do not; and historic monarchies generally also issued declarations of war. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies historically have been generally able to maintain their security. ==See also== *List of politics-related topics *Corporatocracy *Demarchy *''Democracy: An American Novel'', an 1880 in literature novel by Henry Adams. *''Democracy in America'', Alexis de Tocqueville's famous political and cultural analysis of American democracy. *Democratic globalization *Democratization *Disapproval voting *E-democracy/Internet democracy *Freedom House — scores all nations on civil liberties and political rights *The Kyklos *Liberalism *Meritocracy *Plutocracy *Sortition *Students for global democracy *Theocracy *Totalitarian democracy ==External links== *[http://www.beyondplutocracy.com Beyond Plutocracy: True Democracy for America] — Free online book by Roger Rothenberger. *[http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/polsum.html Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict] — Review of trends in democracy over the last century and last decades, and review of related political trends. *[http://www.civilocracy.org Civilocracy] — Equality and diversity in democracy using voluntary sortition and merit qualifications. *[http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Democracy/ Democracy] in the Open Directory Project *[http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2004-daily/16-02-2004/oped/o1.htm Democracy in the Cyber Age] — Article on the changing shape of democracy around the world. *[http://www.democracywatch.org Democracy Watch (International)] — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization. *[http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html Democracy with a small "d"] *[http://www.greens.org/s-r/36/36-22.html Democratic Deficit] *[http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/toc.html The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty] *[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/governance dgGovernance] — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building *[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-78 Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy] *[http://www.e-democracy.org E-Democracy.Org] — Non-profit using the net to build democracy in local communities. *[http://www.e-thepeople.org/ e.thePeople] — Site promoting the people's practical connection to democracy. *[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm ''The Federalist No. 10'' by James Madison] — An original framer of the U.S. Constitution advocates a republic over a democracy. *[http://www.michaellorenzen.com/eric/democracy.html Libraries and Democracy] *[http://ni4d.us The National Initiative for Democracy] *[http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20040901facomment_v83n4_siegle-weinstein-halperin.html New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea] *[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/lowell2.html ''On Democracy'' by James Russell Lowell] *[http://www.publicus.net Publicus.Net] — Steven Clift's articles on democracy in the information age. *[http://simpol.org simpol.org] — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization. *[http://www.sfgd.org Students for Global Democracy] *[http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html Why democracy is wrong] Elections Forms of government bn:গণতন্ত্র fa:مردمسالاری simple:Democracy vi:Dân chủ th:ประชาธิปไตย
All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived. Talk:Democracy/Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Talk:Democracy/Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Talk:Democracy/Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Talk:Democracy/Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Talk:Democracy/Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Talk:Democracy/Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004. ==Tyranny of the majority (moving content to another article)== I'd like to propose that some of the content from "Tyranny of the majority" be moved into the majoritarianism article, especially the examples. I just feel that this section is just getting too long. IMHO, democracy should be an introduction to the concept and link to a lot of sub-articles rather than being very extensive (and long) itself. Any thoughts? --User:Stevietheman 03:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I agree - go for it. Although Majoritarianism doesn't currently use the term "tyranny of the majority" so some adjusting needed I guess. The same could perhaps be done for the "Elections as rituals" section and elections - or else the links between the articles strengthened.--User:Cjnm 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I disagree, it is important to convey negative aspects of democracy in this article, so that people can see it is just a lesser evil and not a panacea. Majoritarianism doesn't serve the purpose, because most people have never heard of it and often pluralities have the same negative characteristics.--User:Silverback 19:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Points taken. You're right that many elections are decided with pluralities. Thus, we probably need to rework this section or write new content to address this. ::Also, this made me think that we might want content that addresses the other negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. ::As an aside, I don't think "most people have never heard of it" should play into our article writing decisions. There are many encyclopedic articles that wouldn't get written if this were a consideration. --User:Stevietheman 19:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::I agree that "most people have never heard of it" should not be used to block obscure or technical subjects. Although, most english speakers probably have never heard of majoritarianism, english is such in its techniques of constructing new words that most could hazard a good guess about what it means upon hearing it. On a subject such as democracy, that most people have heard of, they find this page probably not because they don't know what it is, but wonder if there are considerations or nuances to the issue they haven't considered, there should be at least a concise summary here and some thought provoking examples that will allow them to assess whether the information on a page they are being referred to will be interesting to them or not. IMO, with the examples we have have assembled, most will have been stimulated to consider minorities they might not have otherwise thought of as minorities, that while they may not be sympathic to some of them, they might realize that they themselves might be in some minority without realizing it that could be threatened in the future, and the limitations and mechanisms of democracy deserve their careful consideration.--User:Silverback 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::OK, fair enough. Thank you for your thoughts. --User:Stevietheman 20:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Democratic decisions from pluralities== Does anyone have any ideas about how we can address the situations where democratic decisions are not always made with majorities? --User:Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Negatives from lack of democracy== It would be good to include content that addresses the negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. I think this would be a good balance to the "Tyranny of the majority" content. Any ideas? --User:Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I think it would be superfluous: the criticisms of other political theories would already state the negatives from lack of democracy. There is no sense in repeating yourself. :And thanks for teaching me the code as to how I can 'sign' my name... --User:jsw663 03.47, 03 May 2005 ::At a minimum, "tyranny of the majority" should be balanced with something akin to the "tyranny of the minority". Since tyranny of the minority (or of the one) is far more common in history than a tyranny of the majority (if indeed that's ever really occurred), balance would make sense here. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC) ==Democracy doesn't end on Election Day== It would be also good to include content covering the idea that in a constitutional framework, democracy is more of an ongoing process rather than just what takes place on Election Day. Modern democracy includes the right to participate in the formulation of regulations, to petition the government for grievances, to mount campaigns to convince Congresscritters (and their equivalents everywhere) of specific positions, to take group economic actions which demonstrate the power of said group so their positions are taken seriously, etc. --User:Stevietheman 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Socrates blurb / Modern democracy== First of all, this article has been about "modern democracy"/"liberal democracy" for a long time. If we wish to change the article title to "Democracy (modern)", that's one approach for further clarification, but on the other hand, it's not unusual for there to be a lead article in the Wikipedia for a term that has multiple meanings. It probably is obvious that "modern democracy" is far and away the leading approach to describing the term "democracy" at this time. That said, the Socrates blurb relates to Athenian democracy, not modern democracy, which this article is about. Beyond this, there are already a good number of "tyranny of the majority" examples so that having the Socrates blurb or any others doesn't really add any additional useful info anyway. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Vote for What? == The older greek and roman (under the senate not the emperor so don't bite my head off) democracies were more in the sense of having to vote for a policy rather than a person. In modern democracies this is simply not the case. Is a democracy therefore voting for a leader, or is it "tyranny of the masses" as so eloquently put in the article? :The term Democracy is simply rule by the people, through laws or elected representatives. A Republic is a form of democracy in which leaders are elected based on the will of the people and serves as a check on the tyranny of the masses. --User:Mr Anthem 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==POV== An anon keeps inserting a large amount of poorly formed POV. Please everyone help us keep this out of the article unless and until this person goes over the material in the talk here. We can't have stuff like this sit in the article for hours before reversion. At best, this material needs a lot of discussion and cleanup before inclusion. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Historical development of modern democracy== Just realized the big chunk that's missing from this article. It's almost hard to believe the historical development of modern democracy hasn't been covered yet, at least, in this article or an article of its own. Anyone care to take a stab at this sometime? It might be fun. :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 03:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Cons of democracy == Actually, I was curious about one thing: besides Hitler's pre-Nazi Germany example, which other examples in history can show that democracy has failed? It is all very well to talk about the benefits of democracy in the democracy page, but to be balanced, we need a lengthier 'cons of democracy' section, illustrated with more examples. This is not intended to be an anti-democracy point, but rather, if an entire section can be devoted to democracy being "the loyal opposition", then the least one can expect is an opposing view to the opposition, so to speak. PS I also note that in other political theories, there are lengthy, detailed sections on its criticisms - why can't there be an effective one for democracy as well? -- User:Jsw663 03.44, 03 May 2005 :Agreed but with a caveat: There's still many positives about democracy that have been left out as well. We need a full exploration of both the pros and cons. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Yes, I completely agree, but it seems as if the cons section is seriously underdeveloped, whereas I personally, with my limited knowledge, cannot think of many more pros of democracy! -- User:Jsw663 03.50, 03 May 2005 Democracy? What democracy? Representatives are mostly liars, traitors and criminals carefully selected by parties and Ivy League secret societies to give only a handful of choices to the people. And then, whatever the choice of the people, representatives stab everyone in the back with a vast metaphoric dagger. The primary election process for the President of the United States of America is the most complicated in the world, with complicated party and government rules at each of the local, state and federal levels, modified at each election for the victory of a particular candidate, in stark naked contrast to the simple systems used in the rest of the USA dominated world. The world's a labor aristocracy. The "independent observers" that stand for the entire world's opinion of whether any one election is "free and fair" are probably just Americans pasted onto world opinion, anyway. The constitution is whatever someone that passed the Bar, the President and Congress likes, says that it is. If it's not a direct democracy, it's just the reigning criminal organization, especially the way that states historically act. And democracy is nothing but a gigantic lie. Santa Claus is nothing more or less than the spirit of Christmas. See Lie-to-children. The USA isn't even a Westphailian state anyway. The state isn't organized, the state isn't a community, its politics is just an ideological cover for a battle of elites and commoners on each side trying to rob each other, there are no territorial limits to its world domination or ''hegemonic influence'', and its sovereignty is used in a self defeating way. The War on Drugs and the semanticomoronic "Terror" are both completely self defeating: some deterrence, no reform, no escape, no alternative, no possibility of diplomacy.User:FETuriousness 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC) == On Power Personified. == There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power: It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin. Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee. The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence. Find it at: [http://www.karelin.ru/eng/?foto-portraits3] --User:Scroll1 02:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC) == Different Shape on Every Issue? == "Another argument is that majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision." Could I see a cite to some notable theorist who makes this point? Whoever it is, I'm sure he/she words it better than this. Majorities do sometimes maintain their coherence over a wide range of issues for a long time, the statement that they take a "different shape on EVERY issue" is just wrong. Indeed, the way we switch to more cautious language like "usually" after the semi-colon makes me even more suspicious than I would otherwise be of the "EVERY" before it. --User:Christofurio 21:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :I see no issue with this statement, except that the wording could be improved. It seems to be making a logical statement about what happens in democracy. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC) ::There are certainly some minorities that stand out as distinctive and that remain outside the ruling coalition long enough to be persecuted. Consider the (white) farmers in Zimbabwe who were driven out of the country a couple of years ago. Consider ethnic Chinese in certain east Asian countries, or the Jews in France at the time of Dreyfus' trial. In each of these cases, the mere possibility that "they could eventually do the same to us if they become part of a ruling coalition" did little or nothing to allay persecution, because the minority was/is distinctive, was/is relatively prosperous, was/is the object of majority envy. I'm am glad that the word has just been changed a bit, but I still would like yto see a citation to some notable theorist who has actually made this point. --User:Christofurio 23:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :::Well, let's keep it in the article while a source is searched for. I'm very sure this is something that has been said quite often. As for your examples, that's fair... but the statement we're referring to is talking about a ''tendency'' for tolerance of the minority... it isn't an absolute. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 23:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :::It obviously doesn't hold in every case. It it still a good point as it it applies in many cases. Many people have different views on taxes, gun rights, foreign policy, abortion, and so on. Sometimes they are in a majority, sometimes in a minority. And people may change their view. Ethnic minorities are a special case since one cannot change this and one is easily marked as belonging to this particular minority. User:Ultramarine 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ::::When you guys speak of minorities and majorities, do you mean ethnic/social (i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, clowns) or political (i.e. administration vs opposition)? User:Wlievens 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Political, as in each individual political issue having a different majority/minority associated with it. But you do raise a significant distinction re: ethnic/social that should help us clarify the content in question, although it could also be argued that ethnic/social minorities are often not monolithic in their support of or opposition to various issues. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC) :Lincoln said something very like this; I have no problem with fiddling with the quantification. User:Pmanderson 23:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have another problem in this passage. "A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide." Since these two sentences are in the same paragraph I gather that the second of them is supposed to illuminate or expnd on the first. But it doesn't seem to do so. The first of those sentences seems to be making a purely logical (analytical, if you will) point. The second seems to be making a different, empirical, point. --User:Christofurio 21:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC) ==Les Marshall== Could somebody please find a source/reference for the Les Marshall material? Thanks. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC) This has bugged me, too, since most of the references one gets from googling that name appear to be mirrors from this article. Its possible that the Les Marshall involved is a Labour Party leader in the UK. http://www.mansfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=722&ArticleID=670352 -- or. maybe, that's not him at all. --User:Christofurio 01:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ==is this passage ok?== Also, democracies are often slow to react when in war situations. This is because of the bearocracy a motion needs to pass through to be passed in both houses of Congress. As opposed to the monarchies of old, which could immediately mobilize, in a democracy a declaration of war must be passed in Congress (the president can command a surprise attack, but it must be cleared within 60 days by the Congress). If a draft is instituted, people can protest it. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies are able to retain their postion of power without being overrun by enemies. :not hall democracies have houses called "Congress" and the law of 60 days can be referred only to US.. is it? :It is neither English nor true (consider, for example, how long the French took to decide to get involved in the American Revolution). Other than that, and its deep unawareness of the world outside the United States, I see no problems with it. -- User:Pmanderson ::Actually, even as it now revised, it could use an actual example of democratic slowness. The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. User:Pmanderson :I already revised this passage before I noticed you asking here. Is my revision ok? :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 21:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious. With the advent of categories, what is the purpose of this template? -- User:Stevietheman 14:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I believe in the use of templates as a possibility to place an article in the right context. If one is interested in elections, one can find directly all kinds of related articles, without first searching categories and sub-categories. It is an extra dimension to Wikipedia. --User:Wilfried Derksen 15:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::You should probably consider creating a Wikipedia:WikiReader for this topic. The outline that you have would make a good start. However, it doesn't make a good template for inclusion in all of the pages you've included it in. -- User:RobLa 04:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) This template is so huge that it is no longer useful. Break it into smaller interlinked templates or delete it. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 00:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) This template is ridiculous. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 01:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- This template is no longer necessary as it contains only one link. Overview democracy should be renamed List of democracy-related topics to sound less Canadian and linked directly? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) :You might be right (the title has changed allready in List of democracy and elections-related topics, but it will take some time to make in every related article a direct link. Wiht this existing category, it is done in one step. --User:Wilfried Derksen 06:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Linuxbeak 22:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.-User:Gadfium 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Democracy:
DEMOCRACY
DemocracY
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy/Archive_1
Democracy/Archive_2
Democracy/Archive_3
Democracy/Archive_4
Democracy/Archive_5
Democracy/Archive_6
Democracy/to_do
Democracy:_An_American_Novel
Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
Democracy:_The_God_that_Failed
Democracy_(disambiguation)
Democracy_(varieties)
Democracy_(varieties)
Democracy_(word)
Democracy_21
Democracy_Coalition
Democracy_Corps
Democracy_Day
Democracy_for_America
Democracy_in_America
Democracy_in_America
Democracy_in_China
Democracy_in_the_Middle_East
Democracy_in_the_Middle_East
Democracy_Matters
Democracy_Monument,_Bangkok
Democracy_Movement
Democracy_Movement
Democracy_Now
Democracy_Now!
Democracy_Now_!
Democracy_Now_(East_Germany)
Democracy_USA
Democracy_usa
Democracy_Wall
Democracy_Wall_Movement
Democracy_watch
Democracy_Watch_(International)
Democracy_Watch_(International)
Democracy_Watch_International
Democracy_watch_international
DEMOCRACY
#REDIRECT Democracy
DemocracY
#REDIRECT Democracy
Democracy
The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenship through a fair election. When these factors are met a government can be classified as such. This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other types. ==Etymology== The word democracy originates from the Greek language δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people," plus κρατειν meaning "to rule," and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." ==Real world meaning and definition== ===Evolution of 'democracy'=== The term 'democracy'—or more precisely, the original (Ancient Greece) version of the word—was coined in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. That state is generally seen as the earliest example of a system corresponding to some of the modern notions of democratic rule. However, many do not see ancient Athens as a democracy since only a minority had the right to vote, women, slavery#Slavery in Greece, and foreigners being excluded from the franchise. Only an estimated 16% of the total population had the right to vote. However, the ancient Athenian vote applied to making decisions directly, rather than voting for representatives as is seen with modern democracy. Over time, the meaning of 'democracy' has changed, and the modern definition has largely evolved since the 18th century, alongside the successive introduction of "democratic" systems in many nations. Freedom House argues that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that today 120 (62.5%) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies. They count 25 (19.2%) nations with restricted democratic practices in 1900 and 16 (8.3%) today. They find 19 (14.6%) constitutional monarchies in 1900 in which a constitution delineates the powers of the monarch and in which some power may have devolved to elected legislatures, and no such nations today. Other nations had and have various forms of non-democratic rule. [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html] Today, there are many Democracy (varieties), some hypothesis and some realized. ===Elections as rituals=== Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. Elections have often been used by authoritarianism regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can happen in a variety of different ways: *restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election *restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office *voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates) *or most simply through falsification of the results Historical examples of this include the Soviet Union under the Communist Party of the Soviet Union before its History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991) in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos. ===Liberal democracy=== In common usage, ''democracy'' is often understood to be the same as ''liberal democracy''. While democracy itself is a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, liberal democracy can be characterized by the incorporation of constitutional liberalism, where certain culturally subjective civil rights are protected from a simple majority vote, inversely; in illiberal democracy no such restrictions exist. Qualities of many liberal democracies include: *A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights *Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership (''See also elective rights'') *Freedom of speech, including speech, assembly and protest *Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources *Freedom of association *Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law *The right to property and privacy *Education citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities *A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society *An independent judiciary *A system of checks and balances between branches of government This definition generally comes with qualifications. The decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizenry, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting. In addition, not all citizens are generally permitted to vote. Most democratic nations extend voting rights to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. Some nations also do not permit other categories of people to vote (e.g., current or previously convicted prisoners). Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a Canadian_monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament of Canada. Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights." ===Direct versus representative democracy or 'democracy' versus 'republic'=== The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers of the United States." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to ''direct democracy'', whilst a ''representative democracy'' where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. Political conservatism and Libertarian Party (United States) debate. The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. (See ''#Tyranny of the majority'' below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure. Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchy which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchy adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchy are also not considered to be republics.) ===Socialist democracy=== Anarchism and communism (as in the ultimate stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are political theories that in theory employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves. However, all states governed by a communist party have become dictatorships and have remained as such as long as the party stayed in power. However, socialist theorists such as Tony Cliff have argued that this is the case because the countries in which Communist parties have come to power have all been countries in which the productive forces of development have not reached a level sufficient to support socialism. ==Democratic culture== For countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy, until a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government have occurred too. There are various examples, such as French Revolution or modern Uganda or Iran, of countries that have only been able to sustain democracy in a limited form until wider cultural changes occur to enable real majority rule. One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of a "loyal opposition". This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. The term means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important role that each has to play. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgment of the voters when the election is over, and transfer power peacefully accordingly. The losers are safe in the knowledge that they will not lose their lives or liberty, but can continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself. ==Proportional versus majoritarian representation== Some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority (majoritarian representation). This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional. ==Arguments for and against democracy== ===Role of political parties=== Some critics of representative democracy argue that political party mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected. ===Tyranny of the majority=== ''This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.'' Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority." This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. For example, it is possible in a democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly). Here are some examples of claimed instances in which a majority has acted controversially against the wishes of a minority in relation to specific issues: *In France, some consider current bans on personal religious symbols in public schools to be a violation of religious peoples' rights. *In the United States: **distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency. **"pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized unborn children as an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority. **the conscription early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered. *The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressive tax, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. *Recreational drug use are seen by some as a sizable minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, through War on Drugs. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote. *Society's treatment of homosexuality is also cited in this context. One example is the criminalization of gay sex in United Kingdom during the 19th century and much of the 20th century, made famous by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. *Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent. Whether this is pertinent to the dangers of modern democracies is itself a continuing matter of contention. *Adolf Hitler, who gained the largest minority vote in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since Hitler never gained a majority vote. On the other hand, democratic systems endemically, and perhaps necessarily, end up putting power into the hands of a person or faction that commands the largest minority, so the rise of Hitler can not a priori be considered irrelevant to the merits of democracy. However, the large scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies. Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, very rarely, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority. A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the "tyranny of the majority" is in any case an improvement on a "tyranny of a minority." Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them. ===Political stability=== One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence. ===Poverty=== More democracy correlates with a higher GDP per capita, a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index. However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. It has been argued that most evidence support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with the Index of Economic Freedom, increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II. (It should be added that the government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years; and that provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.) ===Wars=== The democratic peace theory claims that empirical evidence shows that democracies never or almost never make war against each other. One example is a study of all wars from 1816 to 1991 where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle and democracy was defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males. The study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM] However, this theory remains controversial in some circles and is the subject of much academic research and debate. Democracies are sometimes slow to react when in war situations, because of the bureaucratic and legislative requirements for making decisions. In a democracy, the legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced or joined, although sometimes the executive has some power to take the initiative while keeping the legislature informed. Further, if conscription is instituted, people can protest it. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory act immediately, but often do not; and historic monarchies generally also issued declarations of war. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies historically have been generally able to maintain their security. ==See also== *List of politics-related topics *Corporatocracy *Demarchy *''Democracy: An American Novel'', an 1880 in literature novel by Henry Adams. *''Democracy in America'', Alexis de Tocqueville's famous political and cultural analysis of American democracy. *Democratic globalization *Democratization *Disapproval voting *E-democracy/Internet democracy *Freedom House — scores all nations on civil liberties and political rights *The Kyklos *Liberalism *Meritocracy *Plutocracy *Sortition *Students for global democracy *Theocracy *Totalitarian democracy ==External links== *[http://www.beyondplutocracy.com Beyond Plutocracy: True Democracy for America] — Free online book by Roger Rothenberger. *[http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/polsum.html Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict] — Review of trends in democracy over the last century and last decades, and review of related political trends. *[http://www.civilocracy.org Civilocracy] — Equality and diversity in democracy using voluntary sortition and merit qualifications. *[http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Democracy/ Democracy] in the Open Directory Project *[http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2004-daily/16-02-2004/oped/o1.htm Democracy in the Cyber Age] — Article on the changing shape of democracy around the world. *[http://www.democracywatch.org Democracy Watch (International)] — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization. *[http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html Democracy with a small "d"] *[http://www.greens.org/s-r/36/36-22.html Democratic Deficit] *[http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/toc.html The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty] *[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/governance dgGovernance] — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building *[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-78 Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy] *[http://www.e-democracy.org E-Democracy.Org] — Non-profit using the net to build democracy in local communities. *[http://www.e-thepeople.org/ e.thePeople] — Site promoting the people's practical connection to democracy. *[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm ''The Federalist No. 10'' by James Madison] — An original framer of the U.S. Constitution advocates a republic over a democracy. *[http://www.michaellorenzen.com/eric/democracy.html Libraries and Democracy] *[http://ni4d.us The National Initiative for Democracy] *[http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20040901facomment_v83n4_siegle-weinstein-halperin.html New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea] *[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/lowell2.html ''On Democracy'' by James Russell Lowell] *[http://www.publicus.net Publicus.Net] — Steven Clift's articles on democracy in the information age. *[http://simpol.org simpol.org] — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization. *[http://www.sfgd.org Students for Global Democracy] *[http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html Why democracy is wrong] Elections Forms of government bn:গণতন্ত্র fa:مردمسالاری simple:Democracy vi:Dân chủ th:ประชาธิปไตย
Democracy
All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived. Talk:Democracy/Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Talk:Democracy/Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Talk:Democracy/Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Talk:Democracy/Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Talk:Democracy/Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Talk:Democracy/Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004. ==Tyranny of the majority (moving content to another article)== I'd like to propose that some of the content from "Tyranny of the majority" be moved into the majoritarianism article, especially the examples. I just feel that this section is just getting too long. IMHO, democracy should be an introduction to the concept and link to a lot of sub-articles rather than being very extensive (and long) itself. Any thoughts? --User:Stevietheman 03:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I agree - go for it. Although Majoritarianism doesn't currently use the term "tyranny of the majority" so some adjusting needed I guess. The same could perhaps be done for the "Elections as rituals" section and elections - or else the links between the articles strengthened.--User:Cjnm 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I disagree, it is important to convey negative aspects of democracy in this article, so that people can see it is just a lesser evil and not a panacea. Majoritarianism doesn't serve the purpose, because most people have never heard of it and often pluralities have the same negative characteristics.--User:Silverback 19:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Points taken. You're right that many elections are decided with pluralities. Thus, we probably need to rework this section or write new content to address this. ::Also, this made me think that we might want content that addresses the other negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. ::As an aside, I don't think "most people have never heard of it" should play into our article writing decisions. There are many encyclopedic articles that wouldn't get written if this were a consideration. --User:Stevietheman 19:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::I agree that "most people have never heard of it" should not be used to block obscure or technical subjects. Although, most english speakers probably have never heard of majoritarianism, english is such in its techniques of constructing new words that most could hazard a good guess about what it means upon hearing it. On a subject such as democracy, that most people have heard of, they find this page probably not because they don't know what it is, but wonder if there are considerations or nuances to the issue they haven't considered, there should be at least a concise summary here and some thought provoking examples that will allow them to assess whether the information on a page they are being referred to will be interesting to them or not. IMO, with the examples we have have assembled, most will have been stimulated to consider minorities they might not have otherwise thought of as minorities, that while they may not be sympathic to some of them, they might realize that they themselves might be in some minority without realizing it that could be threatened in the future, and the limitations and mechanisms of democracy deserve their careful consideration.--User:Silverback 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::OK, fair enough. Thank you for your thoughts. --User:Stevietheman 20:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Democratic decisions from pluralities== Does anyone have any ideas about how we can address the situations where democratic decisions are not always made with majorities? --User:Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Negatives from lack of democracy== It would be good to include content that addresses the negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. I think this would be a good balance to the "Tyranny of the majority" content. Any ideas? --User:Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I think it would be superfluous: the criticisms of other political theories would already state the negatives from lack of democracy. There is no sense in repeating yourself. :And thanks for teaching me the code as to how I can 'sign' my name... --User:jsw663 03.47, 03 May 2005 ::At a minimum, "tyranny of the majority" should be balanced with something akin to the "tyranny of the minority". Since tyranny of the minority (or of the one) is far more common in history than a tyranny of the majority (if indeed that's ever really occurred), balance would make sense here. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC) ==Democracy doesn't end on Election Day== It would be also good to include content covering the idea that in a constitutional framework, democracy is more of an ongoing process rather than just what takes place on Election Day. Modern democracy includes the right to participate in the formulation of regulations, to petition the government for grievances, to mount campaigns to convince Congresscritters (and their equivalents everywhere) of specific positions, to take group economic actions which demonstrate the power of said group so their positions are taken seriously, etc. --User:Stevietheman 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Socrates blurb / Modern democracy== First of all, this article has been about "modern democracy"/"liberal democracy" for a long time. If we wish to change the article title to "Democracy (modern)", that's one approach for further clarification, but on the other hand, it's not unusual for there to be a lead article in the Wikipedia for a term that has multiple meanings. It probably is obvious that "modern democracy" is far and away the leading approach to describing the term "democracy" at this time. That said, the Socrates blurb relates to Athenian democracy, not modern democracy, which this article is about. Beyond this, there are already a good number of "tyranny of the majority" examples so that having the Socrates blurb or any others doesn't really add any additional useful info anyway. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Vote for What? == The older greek and roman (under the senate not the emperor so don't bite my head off) democracies were more in the sense of having to vote for a policy rather than a person. In modern democracies this is simply not the case. Is a democracy therefore voting for a leader, or is it "tyranny of the masses" as so eloquently put in the article? :The term Democracy is simply rule by the people, through laws or elected representatives. A Republic is a form of democracy in which leaders are elected based on the will of the people and serves as a check on the tyranny of the masses. --User:Mr Anthem 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==POV== An anon keeps inserting a large amount of poorly formed POV. Please everyone help us keep this out of the article unless and until this person goes over the material in the talk here. We can't have stuff like this sit in the article for hours before reversion. At best, this material needs a lot of discussion and cleanup before inclusion. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Historical development of modern democracy== Just realized the big chunk that's missing from this article. It's almost hard to believe the historical development of modern democracy hasn't been covered yet, at least, in this article or an article of its own. Anyone care to take a stab at this sometime? It might be fun. :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 03:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Cons of democracy == Actually, I was curious about one thing: besides Hitler's pre-Nazi Germany example, which other examples in history can show that democracy has failed? It is all very well to talk about the benefits of democracy in the democracy page, but to be balanced, we need a lengthier 'cons of democracy' section, illustrated with more examples. This is not intended to be an anti-democracy point, but rather, if an entire section can be devoted to democracy being "the loyal opposition", then the least one can expect is an opposing view to the opposition, so to speak. PS I also note that in other political theories, there are lengthy, detailed sections on its criticisms - why can't there be an effective one for democracy as well? -- User:Jsw663 03.44, 03 May 2005 :Agreed but with a caveat: There's still many positives about democracy that have been left out as well. We need a full exploration of both the pros and cons. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Yes, I completely agree, but it seems as if the cons section is seriously underdeveloped, whereas I personally, with my limited knowledge, cannot think of many more pros of democracy! -- User:Jsw663 03.50, 03 May 2005 Democracy? What democracy? Representatives are mostly liars, traitors and criminals carefully selected by parties and Ivy League secret societies to give only a handful of choices to the people. And then, whatever the choice of the people, representatives stab everyone in the back with a vast metaphoric dagger. The primary election process for the President of the United States of America is the most complicated in the world, with complicated party and government rules at each of the local, state and federal levels, modified at each election for the victory of a particular candidate, in stark naked contrast to the simple systems used in the rest of the USA dominated world. The world's a labor aristocracy. The "independent observers" that stand for the entire world's opinion of whether any one election is "free and fair" are probably just Americans pasted onto world opinion, anyway. The constitution is whatever someone that passed the Bar, the President and Congress likes, says that it is. If it's not a direct democracy, it's just the reigning criminal organization, especially the way that states historically act. And democracy is nothing but a gigantic lie. Santa Claus is nothing more or less than the spirit of Christmas. See Lie-to-children. The USA isn't even a Westphailian state anyway. The state isn't organized, the state isn't a community, its politics is just an ideological cover for a battle of elites and commoners on each side trying to rob each other, there are no territorial limits to its world domination or ''hegemonic influence'', and its sovereignty is used in a self defeating way. The War on Drugs and the semanticomoronic "Terror" are both completely self defeating: some deterrence, no reform, no escape, no alternative, no possibility of diplomacy.User:FETuriousness 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC) == On Power Personified. == There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power: It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin. Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee. The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence. Find it at: [http://www.karelin.ru/eng/?foto-portraits3] --User:Scroll1 02:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC) == Different Shape on Every Issue? == "Another argument is that majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision." Could I see a cite to some notable theorist who makes this point? Whoever it is, I'm sure he/she words it better than this. Majorities do sometimes maintain their coherence over a wide range of issues for a long time, the statement that they take a "different shape on EVERY issue" is just wrong. Indeed, the way we switch to more cautious language like "usually" after the semi-colon makes me even more suspicious than I would otherwise be of the "EVERY" before it. --User:Christofurio 21:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :I see no issue with this statement, except that the wording could be improved. It seems to be making a logical statement about what happens in democracy. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC) ::There are certainly some minorities that stand out as distinctive and that remain outside the ruling coalition long enough to be persecuted. Consider the (white) farmers in Zimbabwe who were driven out of the country a couple of years ago. Consider ethnic Chinese in certain east Asian countries, or the Jews in France at the time of Dreyfus' trial. In each of these cases, the mere possibility that "they could eventually do the same to us if they become part of a ruling coalition" did little or nothing to allay persecution, because the minority was/is distinctive, was/is relatively prosperous, was/is the object of majority envy. I'm am glad that the word has just been changed a bit, but I still would like yto see a citation to some notable theorist who has actually made this point. --User:Christofurio 23:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :::Well, let's keep it in the article while a source is searched for. I'm very sure this is something that has been said quite often. As for your examples, that's fair... but the statement we're referring to is talking about a ''tendency'' for tolerance of the minority... it isn't an absolute. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 23:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC) :::It obviously doesn't hold in every case. It it still a good point as it it applies in many cases. Many people have different views on taxes, gun rights, foreign policy, abortion, and so on. Sometimes they are in a majority, sometimes in a minority. And people may change their view. Ethnic minorities are a special case since one cannot change this and one is easily marked as belonging to this particular minority. User:Ultramarine 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ::::When you guys speak of minorities and majorities, do you mean ethnic/social (i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, clowns) or political (i.e. administration vs opposition)? User:Wlievens 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Political, as in each individual political issue having a different majority/minority associated with it. But you do raise a significant distinction re: ethnic/social that should help us clarify the content in question, although it could also be argued that ethnic/social minorities are often not monolithic in their support of or opposition to various issues. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC) :Lincoln said something very like this; I have no problem with fiddling with the quantification. User:Pmanderson 23:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have another problem in this passage. "A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide." Since these two sentences are in the same paragraph I gather that the second of them is supposed to illuminate or expnd on the first. But it doesn't seem to do so. The first of those sentences seems to be making a purely logical (analytical, if you will) point. The second seems to be making a different, empirical, point. --User:Christofurio 21:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC) ==Les Marshall== Could somebody please find a source/reference for the Les Marshall material? Thanks. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC) This has bugged me, too, since most of the references one gets from googling that name appear to be mirrors from this article. Its possible that the Les Marshall involved is a Labour Party leader in the UK. http://www.mansfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=722&ArticleID=670352 -- or. maybe, that's not him at all. --User:Christofurio 01:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ==is this passage ok?== Also, democracies are often slow to react when in war situations. This is because of the bearocracy a motion needs to pass through to be passed in both houses of Congress. As opposed to the monarchies of old, which could immediately mobilize, in a democracy a declaration of war must be passed in Congress (the president can command a surprise attack, but it must be cleared within 60 days by the Congress). If a draft is instituted, people can protest it. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies are able to retain their postion of power without being overrun by enemies. :not hall democracies have houses called "Congress" and the law of 60 days can be referred only to US.. is it? :It is neither English nor true (consider, for example, how long the French took to decide to get involved in the American Revolution). Other than that, and its deep unawareness of the world outside the United States, I see no problems with it. -- User:Pmanderson ::Actually, even as it now revised, it could use an actual example of democratic slowness. The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. User:Pmanderson :I already revised this passage before I noticed you asking here. Is my revision ok? :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 21:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Democracy
Democracy
I'm curious. With the advent of categories, what is the purpose of this template? -- User:Stevietheman 14:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I believe in the use of templates as a possibility to place an article in the right context. If one is interested in elections, one can find directly all kinds of related articles, without first searching categories and sub-categories. It is an extra dimension to Wikipedia. --User:Wilfried Derksen 15:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::You should probably consider creating a Wikipedia:WikiReader for this topic. The outline that you have would make a good start. However, it doesn't make a good template for inclusion in all of the pages you've included it in. -- User:RobLa 04:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) This template is so huge that it is no longer useful. Break it into smaller interlinked templates or delete it. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 00:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) This template is ridiculous. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 01:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- This template is no longer necessary as it contains only one link. Overview democracy should be renamed List of democracy-related topics to sound less Canadian and linked directly? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) :You might be right (the title has changed allready in List of democracy and elections-related topics, but it will take some time to make in every related article a direct link. Wiht this existing category, it is done in one step. --User:Wilfried Derksen 06:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Democracy
User:Linuxbeak 22:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.-User:Gadfium 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Democracy
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Democracy:
DEMOCRACY
DemocracY
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy/Archive_1
Democracy/Archive_2
Democracy/Archive_3
Democracy/Archive_4
Democracy/Archive_5
Democracy/Archive_6
Democracy/to_do
Democracy:_An_American_Novel
Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
Democracy:_The_God_that_Failed
Democracy_(disambiguation)
Democracy_(varieties)
Democracy_(varieties)
Democracy_(word)
Democracy_21
Democracy_Coalition
Democracy_Corps
Democracy_Day
Democracy_for_America
Democracy_in_America
Democracy_in_America
Democracy_in_China
Democracy_in_the_Middle_East
Democracy_in_the_Middle_East
Democracy_Matters
Democracy_Monument,_Bangkok
Democracy_Movement
Democracy_Movement
Democracy_Now
Democracy_Now!
Democracy_Now_!
Democracy_Now_(East_Germany)
Democracy_USA
Democracy_usa
Democracy_Wall
Democracy_Wall_Movement
Democracy_watch
Democracy_Watch_(International)
Democracy_Watch_(International)
Democracy_Watch_International
Democracy_watch_international
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
