Democracy

This article deals with democracy in general and its various forms. For specific types of democracy, see Democracy (disambiguation)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page.

Democracy in its ideal sense is the notion that "the people" should have control of the government ruling over them. This ideal is pursued by implementing a system of voting such that the majority of people rule, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Democracies may be "liberal", where fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they may be "illiberal" where they are not.

Democracy is often implemented as a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the real majority (as opposed to a partial or relative majority of the demos/citizens) in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens. In recent decades 'democracy' was used as a synonym for (western) liberal-democratic systems in nation-states, but the existence of "illiberal democracies" is now recognised. The qualifier 'liberal' in this context refers strictly speaking to constitutional liberalism and individual rights, but 'liberal democracy' is widely used to describe other aspects, (see below and the main article Liberal democracy). Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organizations.

Indeed, due to implications of comparative government, other prefered governments included: theocracy, monarchy, parliamentary republic, and republic. Since there are these other forms of government, the preference for the democratic form is itself an ideology, and a source of conflict. Despite its historical importance, there is no separate name for this ideology; it is referred to as 'pro-democracy' or simply 'democracy'. It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government. Democratization is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy. If it continues, some consider that this process will make the liberal-democratic nation-states the standard form of human society, although they are historically recent and historically unique. This transition is the core of the end of history thesis.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia). The components of the word are δημος (demos), the people; κρατειν (kratein), to rule; and the suffix ία (ia). The term means "rule by the people".

History of democracy

For more details on this topic, see History of democracy.

The term democracy - or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word - was coined in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. Athenian democracy is generally seen as the earliest example of a system corresponding to some of the modern notions of democratic rule. Only a sixth or a quarter of the whole (adult male) population of Athens could vote; but this was a bar of nationality, like the present German franchise, not of economic status: however poor they were, all Athenian citizens were free to vote and speak in the Assembly. Ancient Athenian citizens made decisions directly, rather than voting for representatives.

Another early example of some form of democracy was used by republics in Ancient India during the 6th century BC around the time of Buddha. [1] During the time of Alexander, the Greeks came in contact with the Sabarcae and Sambastai states in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan whose "form of government was democratic and not regal" according to Greek scholars at the time.

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 (which is inaccurate as New Zealand achieved universal suffrage well before this date), but that today 120 (62%) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies. They count 25 (19%) nations with 'restricted democratic practices' in 1900 and 16 (8%) today. They counted 19 (14%) constitutional monarchies in 1900, where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none today. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.[2] Some states have changed their regimes after 2000, for example Nepal which has become a non-democracy.

20th century waves of democracy

The 20th century expansion of democracy has not taken the form of a slow transition in each country, but as successive ‘waves of democracy’, some associated with wars. In several cases there was an explicit imposition of democracy by external military force. To supporters of democracy, this is a 'liberation', implying that no prior consent is required. The First World War resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic. It did not at first affect the existing democracies: France, Britain, and Belgium kept their system of government, the revolutionary violence in Germany subsided, and the democratic Weimar Republic was established. The rise of fascist movements, and fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, limited the extent of democracy in the 1930’s, and gave the impression of an ‘Age of Dictators’. The status of most colonies remained unaffected. However democracy is evident from earlier years. For example during the Second Great Awaking (beginning in the 1790s and last for 40 years) where religion became more democractic as people shifted away from Calvinist ideas during the 1820s-1830s.

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend, in western Europe. At the time, and since, it was seen as a ‘Victory for Democracy’, showing that democracy can be extended by military force. The occupation of Germany and its successful ‘democratisation from above’, served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe became part of the non-democratic Soviet bloc. Unlike World War I, the war brought decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.

In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had a mixed economy and developed a welfare state, reflecting a consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, economic growth was high in both the western and ‘communist’ countries, later it declined in the state-controlled economies, and in some western countries. Economic malaise in the 1980’s contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation of the former Soviet bloc countries, including newly independent Soviet Republics. To western public opinion, and to part of their population, this too was a ‘liberation’. To a large section of their population, often the majority, the resulting economic collapse, and the sudden disappearance of state health and welfare provisions was a disaster. The sense of disillusion contributed to a political backlash, the rise of illiberal democracy in Central Asia, and a trend to authoritarian rule in Russia itself. 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. The initial negative effects of the ‘free-market reforms’ were corrected to some extent by the re-introduction of social services and programs, although not at western European level.

Although economic systems are in theory distinct from political systems, the centrally planned economy of the communist era is no longer seen as compatible with democracy. All modern democratic societies have a free-market economy, (although not in the sense that libertarians would accept). There is a hypothetical possibility, that a democratic electorate might vote for a centrally planned economy, but nowhere is it a real political issue.

Essential elements of a democracy

True democracy as a form of government always has the following characteristics:

• there is constrained freedom to further the public good. Stated in negative terms, limits-sometimes vigorous ones-are essential to ensure that not anything goes (e.g., murdering people with handguns). Stated in positive terms, infinite freedom is of the essence to explore within, but not exceed, the boundaries defined by the edge of chaos (e.g., populist revolutions to identify, advocate for, and create consensus around new forms of government that can achieve both the social justice envisioned by Karl Marx and the economic prosperity envisioned by Adam Smith, but without fascism, anarchy, or violence). See Cognitive Work Analysis by Vicente (1999).

• there is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

• there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

• there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a parliament).

• the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts), which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.

• the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.

• the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.

• in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

Political legitimacy and 'democratic culture'

All forms of government depend on their political legitimacy, that is, their acceptance by the population. Without that, they are little more than a party in a civil war, since their decisions and policies will be resisted, probably by force. Apart from those with anti-statist objections, such as anarchists and libertarians, most people are prepared to accept that governments (as such) are necessary. Failure of political legitimacy in modern states is usually related to separatism and ethnic or religious conflicts, rather than political differences. However there are historical examples, notably the Spanish Civil War, where the population split along political lines.

In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power - the concept of a "loyal opposition". Ideally political competitors may disagree, but acknowledge the other side's legitimate role, and ideally society encourages tolerance and civility in public debate. This form of political legitimacy implies that all sides share common fundamental values. Voters must know that the new government will not introduce policies they find totally abhorrent. Shared values, rather than democracy as such, guarantee that.

Free elections alone are not sufficient for a country to become a true democracy; the culture of the country's political institutions and civil service must also change. This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. There are various examples (i.e., Revolutionary France, modern Uganda and Iran) of countries that were able to sustain democracy only in limited form until wider cultural changes occurred to allow true majority rule.

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." 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. conservative and Libertarian debate.

The original framers of the U.S. 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 Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [3] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the 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 monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.)

Liberal democracy

For more details on this topic, see Liberal democracy.

In common usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. The minimal characteristics of democracy (listed above) are not generally considered to make a democracy 'liberal'. In practice, the term now denotes a collection of defining criteria, some of which are unrelated to each other. They are sometimes presented as a list of demands, to be fulfilled during a democratisation process. Note that many liberal democracies have emergency powers which can make them temporarily less liberal, if applied (by the executive, parliament, or via referenda).

Liberal democracy is, strictly speaking, a form of representative democracy where the political power of the government is moderated by a constitution which protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional liberalism). The constitution therefore places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised. Usually, the executive and parliament are constitutionally subject to the rule of law, but some liberal democracies allow no judicial review of constitutionality. Theorists consider these to be the most important 'liberal' element of liberal democracy, but the term is widely used for other elements. In any case, institutional protection for specific minority rights limits the democratic power of the majority, on those specific issues, and can not in itself resolve a conflict between the two groups. Democracies without protection of minority rights are now often called illiberal democracies.

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created by liberals of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Since then, many non-liberals have given their support to liberal democracy - and, indeed, contributed to its growth.

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the hereditary monarch, but the de facto (legislative) sovereign is the people, via their elected representatives in Parliament, hence a democracy.

Preconditions and structure

Although they are not a system of government as such, it is now common to include aspects of society among the defining criteria of a liberal democracy. The presence of a middle class, and a broad and flourishing civil society are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy.

Western support for democratisation is almost always associated with support for a market economy. In western countries, they do seem inseparable, but that is a geographically and historically limited view. China, which is certainly not a liberal democracy, has a free market economy. The emergence of capitalism pre-dates the emergence of democracy, which leads some theorists to conclude that there is a historical sequence at work, and that the free market is not only a precondition, but will ultimately ensure the transition to democracy, in countries such as China. In this view property rights, and the right to found a business enterprise, are pre-conditions for democracy.

The most liberal of the many criteria now used to define liberal democracy (or simply 'democracy'), is the requirement for political pluralism, which is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties. The liberal-democratic political process should be competitive, and analogies with the free market are often used in this context.

The liberal-democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. In the American political tradition, the purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government, and American ideas of liberal democracy are influenced by this. They emphasise the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. European constitutional liberalism is more likely to emphasise the Rechtsstaat, usually translated as rule of law, although it implies a specific form of state or regime.

Liberal democracy is also defined by universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. However, the universality is relative: many countries regarded as democratic have practised various forms of exclusion from suffrage, or demand further qualifications (except for being a citizen), like a registration procedure to be allowed to vote. Voting rights are limited to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. In any case, decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting.

Liberal freedoms

The most often quoted criteria for liberal democracy take the form of specific rights and freedoms. They were originally considered essential for the functioning of a a liberal democracy, but they have acquired such prominence in its definition, that many people now think they are democracy. Since no state wants to admit it is "unfree", and since its enemies may be depicted as 'tyrannies' by its propagandists, they are also usually contested.

In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. In democratic theory, the common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. According to this argument, allowing free speech for the opponents of free speech logically undermines free speech. In Europe, this has become a political issue with the rise of Islamist political argument, which often does explicitly reject such liberal freedoms. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process.

• Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest. There are various legal limitations like copyright and defamation, more general restrictions may include restrictions on anti-democratic speech, on attempts to undermine human rights, on the promotion or justification of terrorism, and in some cases on "anti-western" ideas. In the United States more than in Europe, during the Cold War, such restrictions generally applied to Communists, now they are mainly applied to Islamists.
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources is considered a characteristic of liberal democracy. For certain groups, however, it may be limited: Islamist media now face restrictions in many democracies, including censorship of satellite broadcasting in France, and proposed bans on Islamist websites in several countries.
• Freedom of association is also restricted in democracies, for groups considered a threat to state or society. Most democracies have procedures to ban organisations, on suspicion of terrorism, for instance, and usually without a prior judicial procedure. The European Union has an official list of banned organisations, overriding the freedom of association in the European Convention on Human Rights and the national constitutions.
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law is considered a characteristic of liberal democracy, but the United States holds certain categories of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and possibly in other secret prisons, without trial, and without any specific grounds in domestic or international law. If relatively small numbers of people, seen as mortal enemies by the majority of the population, are excluded from legal protections, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy: it is not qualitatively different from repressive autocracy, but quantitatively different.

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 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 have a large proportion of representatives elected from constituencies and then shares out compensating mandates so that parties are represented proportionally, so as to get the best of both worlds. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.

Social democracy

For more details on this topic, see Social democracy.

Social democracy can be considered a spin-off of socialist and communist ideas, in a gradualist and constitutional setting. Many social democratic parties in the world are evolutions of revolutionary parties that, for ideologic or pragmatic reasons, came to embrace a strategy of gradual change through existing institutions, or a policy of working for liberal reforms prior to more profound social change, instead of sudden revolutionary change.

In North America and Western Europe, most parties calling themselves Socialist (or sometimes even Communist) are in actuality Social democratic, according to the definition given here. In some extreme cases, as in Portugal's Social Democratic party, the name actually indicates a right-wing party.

In general, the hallmarks of social democracy are:

• Market regulation;
• Social security, also known as welfare state;
• Subsidized or government-owned public school and health services;
• Progressive taxation.

Furthermore, for ideological affinity or other reasons, most social democrats are also associated with environmentalism, multiculturalism, and secularity.

Countries often indicated as social democracies are the Nordic countries, for their extensive welfare states and progressive taxation regime. These social democracies are at the same time liberal democracies.

Illiberal democracy

For more details on this topic, see Illiberal democracy.

An illiberal democracy is a political system where democratic elections exist, and the government is elected by a democratic majority, but is not restrained from encroaching on the liberty of individuals, or minorities. This may be due to a lack of constitutional limitations on the power of the elected executive, or violations of the existing legal limitations. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Some critics of illiberal regimes now suggest that the rule of law should take precedence over democracy, implying a de facto Western acceptance of what are called 'liberalised autocracies'.[4]

Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

All democracies (and every other form of government) have certain structural defects, which are related to the nature of democracy. Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform. Two prominent defects are related to the territory and membership of the demos itself.

Immigrants and 'the people'

Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.

The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections.

An immigrant who is still a citizen in another country has the right to vote in his home country, in the government elections. That is why he is not allowed to vote for a government in the country where he is living. The principle behind this rule is that one person should not have two votes. If he becomes a citizen of the new country, and no longer is a citizen of the old country, he can vote for the government in the new country. In most european countries an immigrant worker has the right to vote in local elections and in european parliament elections, but he can only have one vote, not two votes.

In practice this system creates a massive population of people who cannot afford the often expensive, bureaucratic and lengthy process of becoming a citizen. For all practical purposes they are a citizens of the country they have immigrated to They work, live, raise families and contribute immensely to economic and social growth. However they are denied the basic right to participate in government.

Ethnic and religious conflicts

Democracy, and especially liberal democracy, necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos is in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, it is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of Soviet bloc states led to wars and civil war in the former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova; wars have also continued in Africa and other parts of the Third World. Nevertheless, statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons [5].

Bureaucracy

A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternal natural law - although there is no consensus on what this natural law is, even among advocates.

Democracies are also criticised for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making.

Short-term focus

Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking. For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment. However, this risk applies also to other political systems.

Electorate Intelligence

The electorate must often make decisions based on campaigns and propaganda. Some of the issues raised could be beyond the interest or competence of a substantial portion of the voters. This is particularly apparent when a special interest group collects support (often a constitutionally set number of signatures) to force a general referendum. In this case, faith (even if implicitly) is placed in the superiority of a majority opinion, at least in the sense that fair is good.

Public choice theory

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behavior of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society.

Plutocracy

The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. He concludes:

"A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."

Private ownership of the media may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship.

Tyranny of the majority

This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it is "tyranny of the majority". The expression was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America (1831). However the phrase is more popularly attributed to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859)- not then referring to democratic government, but to social conformity. The issue of majority dominance was however known during the ancient Greek democracies. It is independent of universal suffrage, but it implies a broad franchise (otherwise there would be conflicting minorities). It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Typically, this majority is really only a relative majority of the voters and therefore only a minority. It may therefore be argued that one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the majority. This politically active and dominant group might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalised (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.

Possible examples include:

• several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', the burqa, the niqaab. In France, they are banned in public schools under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion.
• prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. In the United States distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
• the law on abortion is typically determined by the religious attitude of the majority. For "pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists, unborn children are an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority, and a ban on abortion is a proper use of state power: their opponents disagree.
• recreational drug use is also typically legalised (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. In one country, USA, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
• society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago, in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious views of the majority.
• Slavery of a particular race or ethnicity can occur as a result of majority rule if the majority is of a unified race.
• in the United States, the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticised as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
• the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. However, this is generally offset to some degree, by their better access to relevant expert advice (tax consultants and lawyers).
• in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may be disadvantaged by a majority who resent transfer taxation. Especially when they form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state. The initial abandonment of impoverished ethnic-minority residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina illustrates the degree to which a minority underclass can be isolated in a democracy.

[6][7] (pdf).

• classical Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent, although the relevance of this example to contemporary democracy is itself a matter of dispute.
• An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler can not be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's 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 defences concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. 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, sometimes, 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.

Political stability may be considered as 'excessive' when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. This can take the form of Bipartidism, where power is shared only by two parties, alternating the roles of governing and opposition. This is common in democracies where the electoral system favors two-party systems.

Effective response in wartime

A pluralist democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army. Alfred Thayer Mahan would add that democracies do not prepare well for wars either; particularly, that they will not maintain navies without strong and foresightful leadership. Monarchies and dictatorships can (in theory) act immediately and forcefully.

However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation is attributes this primarily to “the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined” by which “democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars”. Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources, or selection of wars with a high chance of winning.[8]

Corruption

Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption [9]. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of corruption in established democracies.

Poverty and famine

Statistically, 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. Various theories have been put forth, all of them controversial. One observation is that democracy become widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. Evidence in peer-reviewed statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which has been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by independent researchers [10], increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India (which is democratic but arguably not prosperous) or Brunei (which has a high GDP but has never been democratic). There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a few find no or even a small negative effect. [11] [12][13][14][15][16]. One objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canda today have a higher GDP/capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP/capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be noted that Sweden and Canada are among the world's most capitalist nations according to the index, due to factors such as strong rule of law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade. Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition.

It should be noted that correlation is not causation - in other words, if two events happen at the same time (for example democracy and lack of famine), that does not mean that one must cause the other. However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.

Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter[17][18].

A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine [19]. 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.)

The democratic peace theory

For more details on this topic, see Democratic peace theory.

Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, that democracies have few civil wars, and that democracies have little democide.

There are various criticisms of the theory, including specific historic wars and that correlation is not causation.

Sources

• Harald Müller, Jonas Wolff (2004): Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back: Reconstructing the Social Constructivist Approach After the Monadic Renaissance. (Paper, 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference

The Hague, September 9-11, 2004).

• Emerson P J. Beyond the Tyranny of the Majority compares most of the more common voting procedures used in both decision-making and elections; while Defining Democracy looks at both the historical and current practice in decision-making, elections, and governance.

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Democracy

Look up Democracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary

• Journal of Democracy
• Democracy in the Open Directory Project
• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy
• Democracy Watch (International) — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization.
• dgGovernance — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building
• Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict.
• The Federalist No. 10 by James Madison
• New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea
• The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria

Critique

• The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty
• Riff-Raff — Democracy as the Community of Capital - A Provisional Critique of Democracy
• Why democracy is wrong
• Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
• Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
• Churchill on Democracy Revisited by J.K. Baltzersen
• Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried

Alternatives and improvements - see also e-democracy and Internet democracy

• Democracy with a small "d"
• Civilocracy — Equality and diversity in democracy using voluntary sortition and merit qualifications.
• Democratic Deficit
• On Democracy by James Russell Lowell
• openDemocracy — Global democracy network using information, participation and debate to empower citizens.
• simpol.org — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization.
• Students for Global Democracy
• Collection of articles discussing democracy in online media