What is Democracy?

Democracy is an interesting notion. Most people if you stop them in the street and ask ‘what is democracy?’ the answer would probably have something to do with the right to vote and freedom, beyond that, many do not know. I didn’t know we had a Westminster style of Government until I studied Economics at age 24. I didn’t learn it at school. I also found out that Australian High Court decisions had to be appealed through the Privy Council in UK. These appeals were limited (1968) and ended in 1975. However the Australian State courts could appeal until 1980s. Moreover, I didn’t know about the separation of powers vested in the executive (the ministry), legislature (parliament) and judiciary (court system). In Australia we have a Federal Government (powers relating to the whole) and State system governing a geographic area e.g. New South Wales. There is an inconsistencies provision whereby if there are two laws at the State and Federal level, the Commonwealth Government law is the law that is adhered to. Australia has three tiers of Government: Federal, State and Local Councils.

What I have questioned about the democracy I live in is why I can only choose between two parties? Why do I have to vote for personalities that represent policies? Why can’t I have more of a say on Health, Education, Environment, Taxation, Hours of Work etc. I would like to see a questionnaire at the polling booth. I also would like there to be a way to removed a government if clearly they are corrupted or ignoring the public. We saw that during the Iraq conflict, many Australians did not understand why we were at war (and still are) given it had nothing to do with this country. Approximately 250,000 marched in Melbourne and Sydney, there was significant opposition, but our government went ahead. As a citizen I wrote in to the Prime Minister and I had a long list of questions about our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and all I received back was a standard letter. It appeared to me that I exposed myself and that my democratic right appeared tokenism. I’ve never been personally asked about anything. I have been taught at university that there is a social contract, that the concept of democracy is rule by the people for the people. What I saw in Parliament were mostly lawyers and mostly men representating a demographic that was diverse. They didn’t have any qualifications that made them aware of the realities people on the ground experience. Moreover, I came to learn that interest groups had far more influence, marginal electorates were focussed on, and those donating to political parties could affect party decisions. So for me, the idea of democracy didn’t seem real. I do see some merit in it, even if it is token, our government couldn’t lock up people for disagreeing, although a previous government, would have if they could have. So the notion of freedom of speech does have power. The legality of public protest does have protections. The courts are relatively independent, although if you have an expensive lawyer, you are likely to have better representation etc.

So I would like to see more public participation, public understanding and public input into the society we want. The public do need to be educated to understand the real meaning of democracy and not to be afraid to stand up. Public forums could be regular in small areas, so the public get to experience being heard and voicing their concerns and ideas, then voting. It would be great to educate people in problem solving and solutions generating. By bringing it to the grass roots people actually feel they are being heard and the ideas would be very exciting. Citizenship rather than consumerism would come to the fore and people would feel a sense of purpose and belonging to their community.

I created a Children’s forum which was non adversarial, yet children were encouraged to inspire, challenge and empower. If conflict arose, rather than debate and demonising the opposition, kids would be encouraged to conflict resolve any problems and welcome being challenged or opposed. This is democracy and is what creates fertile and exciting ideas. We need that type of configuration around issues of climate change, the adversarial style just blocks solutions because political point scoring is more important. I would also like to see Question Time as the public asking their leaders questions.

So that is my viewpoint and experience. We go now to the definition of democracy.

Democracy: Courtesy of wikipedia.

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) “rule of the people”,[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) “people” and κράτος (Kratos) “power”, in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.[3] However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as “the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known.”[4] This type of freedom, which is connected to human “natality,” or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as “not only a political system… [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human.”[5]

While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[6] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[7] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[8][9]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[10][11] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[12][13][14] Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy are all major examples of attempts at a form of government that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens.

Many people use the term “democracy” as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, “democracy” is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term “democracy” is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a “tyranny of the majority” in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights. An essential part of an “ideal” representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[15] and procedurally.[16] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19]

Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece,[20][21] but democratic practices are evident in earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India.[22] Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[20] Europe,[20] and North and South America.[23] The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.[24] Democracy has been called the “last form of government” and has spread considerably across the globe.[25] The right to vote has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.

Ancient origins

The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in Athens during the late 6th century BCE. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of “rule by the governed”, with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners). Today Classical Athenian democracy is considered by many to have been a direct democracy. Originally it had two distinguishing features: first the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to the few government offices and the courts,[26] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.[27]

All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, Athenian citizens were all-male, born from parents who were born in Athens, and excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the perhaps 250,000 inhabitants only a small plurality were citizens. The (elected) generals often held influence in the assembly. Pericles was, during his many years of de-facto political leadership, once elected general 15 years in a row.

A possible example of primitive democracy may have been the early Sumerian city-states.[28] A similar proto-democracy or oligarchy existed temporarily among the Medes (ancient Iranian people) in the 6th century BC, but which came to an end after the Achaemenid (Persian) Emperor Darius the Great declared that the best monarchy was better than the best oligarchy or best democracy.[29] Although the term “democracy” is not often used for civilizations outside of Europe in ancient times there were organizations of government very akin to democracy in some African societies[30] such as the Igbo nation of what is now Nigeria.[31]

A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent “republics” of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD.[32] The evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek historian at the time of Alexander the Great’s excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.[33] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy at the 3rd century BC and later had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.[34][35] The lack of the concept of citizen equality across caste system boundaries has led many scholars to believe that the true nature of ganas and sanghas would not be comparable to that of truly democratic institutions.[36]

Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to certain 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 of Gerrymandering, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[37] However, many notable exceptions did occur.
Middle Ages

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

The Kouroukan Fouga or Kurukan Fuga is purported to be the constitution of the Mali Empire (mid-thirteenth century to c. 1645 CE), created after the Battle of Krina by an assembly of notables to create a government for the newly established empire. It was first alluded to in print in Djibril Tamsir Niane’s book, Soundjata, ou la Epoupée Mandingue.[38] The Kouroukan Fouga divided the new empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a democratic republic.

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

Magna Carta, 1215, England

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

However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population, (less than 3% as late as 1780[39]), and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was enacted, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament.[39] The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[40] As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832.

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

18th and 19th centuries

The first nation in modern history to adopt a democratic constitution was the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755. This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment principles and even allowed for female suffrage, something that was granted in other democracies only by the twentieth century. Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders also shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. [42] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some.

In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[43] However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, that a variety of organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.[44]

During the 1820s and 1830s the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.) was the primary vehicle for proposals to return black Americans to freedom in Africa, and in 1821 the A.C.S. established the colony of Liberia, assisting thousands of former African-American slaves and free black people to move there from the United States.[44] By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60–80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[45] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy.

In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792.[46] Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[47] In 1848, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[48]

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

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

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

20th and 21st centuries

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

In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[49]

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[50]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change.

However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world’s largest democracy and continues to be so.[51]

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

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

Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . Some researchers consider that in contemporary Russia there is no real democracy and one of forms of dictatorship takes place.[52]

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

According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[53] According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world’s population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.[54]

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