Discover

(Redirected from Democratic)

'Democracy' describes a small number of related forms of government. The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism.^[1] With origins in ancient Greece, Rome, south Asia, and North and South America ^[2] democracy has generally grown and expanded throughout history. The principles of democracy emphasize the importance of the individual in the context of government and, today, are a major influence around the world. Though the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other groups and organizations.
In contemporary world politics, democracy has become a significant concept, with most nations in the world claiming to adhere to the broad principles of democracy. However, there is significant diversity among nations describing themselves as democratic in the modern world, making democracy increasingly difficult to define; for instance, the North Korean constitution describes North Korea as a democratic state,^[3] but some commentators in Western nations have described it as a totalitarian dictatorship.^[4]

Contents

Etymology

Forms of democracy

Representative

Parliamentary democracy

Liberal democracy

Direct Democracy

Socialist Democracy

Anarchist Democracy

Tribal Democracy

Consensus Democracy

History

Ancient origins

Middle Ages

18th and 19th centuries

20th Century

Theory

Aristotle

Conceptions

"Democracy" and "Republic"

Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers

Criticisms of Democracy

Arguments for democracy

Beyond the public level

Quotes

See also

Notes

Further reading

External links

Etymology

The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek ''demokratia'' (''δημοκρατία''), formed from the roots ''demos'' (''δημος''), "people,"^[5] "the mob, the many"^[6] and ''kratos'' (''κρατος'') "rule".^[5]

Forms of democracy

Representative

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.

Parliamentary democracy

Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.

Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name ''liberal'') of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either non-existent, or not enforced.

Direct Democracy

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate the decision making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e voting). Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million potential voters.^[8] In Switzerland, 5 million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level.
nb

Socialist Democracy

Socialism has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised though Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy. Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and other "orthodox Marxists" generally advocate democracy, but practice totalitarianism and often employ a cult of personality, secret police and propaganda to remain in power.

Anarchist Democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.^[9] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,^[10] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.^[11]
Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favor of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.^[12]

Tribal Democracy

Certain tribes such as the bushmen organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. [1]

Consensus Democracy

Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.^[13]

History

Main articles: History of democracy

Ancient origins

The concept of democracy first appeared in Ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. 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 timarchy (rule by one race or nationality over another).^[15]
Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,^[16] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. All the Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or metics. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.^[17]
One of the earliest instances of civilizations with democracy, or sometimes disputed as oligarchy, was found in the republics of ancient India, which were established sometime before the 6th century BC, and prior to the birth of Gautama Buddha. These republics were known as Maha Janapadas, and among these states, Vaishali (in what is now Bihar, India) would be the world's first republic. The democratic Sangha, Gana and Panchayat systems were used in some of these republics; the Panchayat system is still used today in Indian villages. Later during the time of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, the Greeks wrote about 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.^[18] The Republic of India is currently the largest democracy in the world.^[19]
The Roman Republic had elections but again women, slaves, and the large foreign population were excluded. The votes of the wealthy were given more weight and almost all high officials come from a few noble families. [4]
Democracy was also seen to a certain extent in bands and tribes such as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, in the Iroquois Confederacy only the males of certain clans could be leaders and some clans were excluded. Only the oldest females from the same clans could choose and remove the leaders. This excluded most of the population. An interesting detail is that there should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.[5] [6] 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.

Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a minority of the population, such as the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tyrol 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 during the middle-ages were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta. 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% in 1780. [7]), and the system had problematic features such as rotten boroughs. The power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of the Parliament. [8] The franchise was slowly increased and the Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead. [9]

18th and 19th centuries

Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States has been described as the first liberal democracy on the basis that its founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality.^[20] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. However, in the colonial period before 1776, 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.^[21] However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. 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 Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) the right to vote.
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. [10]
Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late nineteenth century. Various nations and territories have claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.

20th Century

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most 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 Poland, the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, these made the 1930s the "Age of Dictators" [11].
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, 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. In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-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, and several of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 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. The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples 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, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.
The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. 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" theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to Post-democracy.

Theory

Aristotle

Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny/monarchy or today autocracy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity). [12] [13].

Conceptions

Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.

★ ''Aggregative democracy'' uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:

★
★ Under ''minimalism'', democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''.^[22] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.

★
★ Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

★
★ Government will tend produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter — with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individaul and governments.Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''.^[23]

★
★ Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.^[24] Some see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds.

★ ''Deliberative democracy'' is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds.

★ ''Radical democracy'' is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes.

"Democracy" and "Republic"

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical equalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.^[25] For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority.^[26] Madison was seeking to distinguish between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, but his choice to do so using the words "democracy" and "republic" had no basis in prior usage of the words. ^[27]
In contemporary western usage, the term "democracy" usually refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [14] The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. Therefore, today the term is used by states which are quite different from the earlier use of the term, such as the former German Democratic Republic and the USSR.
Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy, or to representative democracy without checks on the power of elected officials, retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles.
Note that the US constitution states that the power comes from the people "We the people..." However, some argue that unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens in the US are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.^[28] Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. Thomas Jefferson stated that majority rights cannot exist if individual rights do not.^[29] The power of the majority of the people is ''checked'' by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right.^[30] Moreover, the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual having legislative, judicial, and executive powers so that basic constitutional law is extremely difficult to change. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure. Inalienable rights refers to a set of human rights that are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered.^[31] The Constitution of the United States was written to protect the inalienable rights of citizens from potential excesses of government, even if taken by majority rule. Inalienable rights are not granted by government, but by nature.^[32]
Republicanism and Liberalism have complex relationships to democracy and republic. See these articles for more details.

Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers

Initially after the American and French revolutions the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).

Criticisms of Democracy

Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, anarchists, communists, fascists and monarchists. For debates on specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article, such as Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Polyarchy, Sortition, etc. See Anti-Democratic Thought.

Arguments for democracy

Empirical research shows that more democratic nations have little democide.^[33], rarely or never make war on one another,^[34] and have few civil wars.^[35] See Democratic peace theory.
Poor democracies have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than poor dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education. Instead, the available resources are managed better.^[36] Democracies do not have large scale famines.^[37]
Refugee crises almost always occur in nondemocracies. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies.^[38] 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.^[39] Democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies.^[40] Democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation.^[41]
Regarding the claim that nondemocracies have higher growth, this only applies to East Asia. If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.^[36] A recent meta-analysis finds that democracy has no direct effect on economic growth. However, it has a strong and significant indirect effects which contribute to growth. Democracy is associated with higher human capital accumulation, lower inflation, lower political instability, and higher economic freedom. There is also some evidence that it is associated with larger governments and more restrictions on international trade.^[43]

Beyond the public level

This article deals mainly with democracy as it relates to systems of public government. This generally involves nations and subnational levels of government, although the European Parliament, whose members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.

★ Many non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.

★ In business, corporations elect their boards by votes weighed by the number of shares held by each owner.

★ Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.

★ Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

Quotes

★ When the people fear the government, there is Tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is Liberty.
::-Thomas Jefferson

★ Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve.
::–George Bernard Shaw

★ Democracy is the government of the people,by the people and for the people.
::-Abraham Lincoln

★ The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.
::-Sir Winston Churchill

See also

★ Representative democracy

★ Direct democracy

★ Participatory democracy

★ Deliberative democracy

★ Democratic Peace Theory

★ List of types of democracy

★ Poll

★ Media democracy

★ Islamic democracy

★ Sociocracy

★ Democraticization

★ Majority rule

★ Freedom deficit

Notes

1. Liberty and justice for some at Economist.com
2. Indian givers: how the Indians of the Americas transformed the world, Weatherford, J. McIver, , , Fawcett Columbine, 1988,
3. on Wikisource
4. Freedom in the World 2006 at freedomhouse.org
5. Democracy:Britannica Student Encyclopedia
6. Inoguchi, Takashi, Edward Newman, John
Keane (1998). ''The Changing Nature of Democracy'' Page 255. United Nations University Press,
7. Democracy:Britannica Student Encyclopedia
8. John M. Allswang. ''The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998'' (2000) (ISBN 0-8047-3821-1)
9. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. ''General Idea of the Revolution'' See also commentary by Graham, Robert. ''The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution''
10. Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
11. Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm
12. Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. ''Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century''
13. Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson, ''Why Deliberative Democracy?''. 2004, Princeton University
Press. ISBN 0691120196[2]
14. Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. "Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets." Political Analysis 11: 196-203
15. Political Analysis in Plato's Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
16. Aristotle Book 6
17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml
18. Democracy in Ancient India. Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University.
19. Time-India Awakens
20. Jacqueline Newmyer, "Present from the start: John Adams and America", ''Oxonian Review of Books'', 2005, vol 4 issue 2
21. Ray Allen Billington, ''America's Frontier Heritage'' (1974) 117-158. ISBN 0826303102
22. Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.
23. Anthony Downs, (1957). ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''. Harpercollins College. ISBN 0-06-041750-1.
24. Dahl, Robert, (1989). ''Democracy and its Critics.'' New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300049382
25. Dahl, Robert A. ''A Preface to Democratic Theory'' University of Chicago Press (1956), P.10
26. James Madison, (November 22, 1787). "", ''Daily Advertiser''. New York. Republished by Wikisource.
27. Dahl, Robert A. ''On Democracy'', P.16-17
28. Levinson, Sanford. ''Constitutional Faith''. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 60 ISBN 0691023212
29. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

30. Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422
31. Declaration of US Independence http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html>
32. Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441
33. Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder in the Twentieth Century, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994:
34. Never at War. Spencer R. Weart. Yale University Press 2000
35. Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816–1992, Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch, , , American Political Science Review, 2001
36. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace
37. Amartya Sen, (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". ''Journal of Democracy'', 10.3, 3–17. Johns Hopkins University Press.
38. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace
39.
Daniel Lederman, Normal Loaza, Rodrigo Res Soares, (November 2001). "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter". ''World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708''. SSRN 632777. Accessed February 19, 2006.
40. Democracies at War, , Dan, Reiter, Princeton University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-691-08949-3
41. R.J. Rummel, (2006). Happiness—This Utilitarian Argument For Freedom Is True. Accessed February 22, 2006.
42. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace
43. Democracy and Economic Growth: A meta-analysis, Doucouliagos, H., Ulubasoglu, M, , , School of Accounting, Economics and Finance Deakin University Australia, 2006

Further reading

★ Appleby, Joyce, ''Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination'' (1992)

★ Becker, Peter, Juergen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. ''Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850.'' Cambridge University Press. 2002.

★ Benhabib, Seyla, ed., ''Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political'' (Princeton University Press, 1996)

★ Charles Blattberg, ''From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First'', Oxford University Press, 2000, ch. 5. ISBN 0-19-829688-6

★ Birch, Anthony H., ''The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy'', (London: Routledge, 1993)

★ Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," ''European Journal of Political Theory'' (2005) v 4 #4 pp 453-65.online version

★ Copp, David, Jean Hampton, and John E. Roemer, eds. ''The Idea of Democracy'' Cambridge University Press (1993)

★ Dahl, Robert A. ''Democracy and its Critics'', Yale University Press (1989)

★ Dahl, Robert A. ''On Democracy'' Yale University Press (2000)

★ Dahl, Robert A. Ian Shapiro, and Jose Antonio Cheibub, eds, ''The Democracy Sourcebook'' MIT Press (2003)

★ Dahl, Robert A. ''A Preface to Democratic Theory'', University of Chicago Press (1956)

★ Davenport, Christian. ''State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace'' Cambridge University Press (2007)

★ Diamond, Larry and Marc Plattner, ''The Global Resurgence of Democracy'', 2nd edition Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996

★ Diamond, Larry and Richard Gunther, eds. ''Political Parties and Democracy'' (2001)

★ Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino, eds. ''Assessing the Quality of Democracy'' (2005)

★ Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner, and Philip J. Costopoulos, eds. ''World Religions and Democracy'' (2005)

★ Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner, and Daniel Brumberg, eds. ''Islam and Democracy in the Middle East'' (2003)

★ Elster, Jon (ed.). ''Deliberative Democracy'' Cambridge University Press (1997)

★ Fotopoulos, Takis, "Liberal and Socialist “Democracies” versus Inclusive Democracy", ''The International Journal Of Inclusive Democracy'', Vol.2 No.2 (January 2006)

★ Fotopoulos, Takis, "Direct and Economic Democracy in Ancient Athens and its Significance Today", ''Democracy & Nature'', Vol.1 No.1 (Issue 1), 1992

★ Gabardi, Wayne. "Contemporary Models of Democracy," ''Polity'' 33#4 (2001) pp 547+.

★ Griswold, Daniel, Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle

★ Hansen, Mogens Herman, ''The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes'', (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991)

★ Held, David. ''Models of Democracy'' Stanford University Press, (1996), reviews the major interpretations

★ Inglehart, Ronald. ''Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies'' Princeton University Press. 1997.

★ Khan, L. Ali, ''A Theory of Universal Democracy.'' Martinus Nijhoff Publishers(2003)

★ Lijphart, Arend. ''Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries'' Yale University Press (1999)

★ Lipset, Seymour Martin. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”, American Political Science Review, (1959) 53 (1): 69-105. online at JSTOR

★ Macpherson, C. B. ''The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy.'' Oxford University Press (1977)

★ Morgan, Edmund. ''Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America'' (1989)

★ Plattner, Marc F. and Aleksander Smolar, eds. ''Globalization, Power, and Democracy'' (2000)

★ Plattner, Marc F. and João Carlos Espada, eds. ''The Democratic Invention'' (2000)

★ Putnam, Robert. ''Making Democracy Work'' Princeton University Press. (1993)

★ Raaflaub, Kurt A.; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert W. ''Origins of democracy in ancient Greece''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007 (hardcover, ISBN 0520245628).

★ Riker, William H., ''The Theory of Political Coalitions (1962)

★ Sen, Amartya K. “Democracy as a Universal Value”, ''Journal of Democracy'' (1999) 10 (3): 3-17.

★ Weingast, Barry. “The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law and Democracy”, ''American Political Science Review,'' (1997) 91 (2): 245-263. online at JSTOR

★ Whitehead, Laurence ed. ''Emerging Market Democracies: East Asia and Latin America'' (2002)

★ Wood, E.M., ''Democracy Against Capitalism'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)

★ Wood, Gordon S. '' The Radicalism of the American Revolution'' (1993), examines democratic dimensions of republicanism

External links

★ Program To Defend Democracy at Tel Aviv University

★ Journal of Democracy

★

★ Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

★ Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy

★ Democracy Watch (International) — Worldwide democracy monitoring organization.

★ The Case Against Democracy

★ IFES — supporting the building of democratic societies around the world

★ ''Democracy at large'' magazine — a quarterly magazine designed for professionals interested in democracy development worldwide

★ dgGovernance — Collection of resources on key issues of democracy and nation-building

★ the site of the Association for the School of Democracy a university-level research and training pluri- and transdisciplinary school of democracy

★ "Islam and the Challenge of Democracy" by UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl in the April/May 2003 issue of ''Boston Review''

★ New York Times argument against the "Development first, democracy later" idea

★ ''The Rise of Illiberal Democracy'' by Fareed Zakaria

★ The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance

★ openDemocracy — Global democracy network using information, participation and debate to empower citizens.

★ Why Democracy? Global broadcast event.

★ Cosmopolitan democracy

★ Technologies of Measuring Democracy

★ The Danger of Democratic Self-Destruction,

★ A New Nation Votes: American Elections Returns 1787-1825

★ locate textbook for children of age group 14 to 16 on DemocracyYou can download the soft versions of these books from this site by ''Selecting Class'' 'CLASS IX' ''Selecting Subject'' 'Political Science' ''Selecting Book title'' 'Political Science'

★ Global Social Change reports includes reports about global political change, in democracy and related political trends.
;Critique

★ The Democratic State - A Critique of Bourgeois Sovereignty, GegenStandpunkt.com

★ Leo Björk, "Democracy as the Community of Capital - A Provisional Critique of Democracy" ''Riff-Raf''f #7 (Summer 2005)

★ Hans Köchler ed., Crisis of Representative Democracy'', (Frankfurt a. M./Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1987) (ISBN 3-8204-8843-X)

★ Democracy, Liberty, Equality What is the relation between democracy and liberalism? (A Dialogue beetween Steven Gormley and Robert Farrow), (05 December 2006) Black Thumb

★ Paul Treanor, Why democracy is wrong

★ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ''Democracy, The God That Failed'', (Rutgers, NJ: 2001)

★ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, ''Liberty or Equality''

★ J.K. Baltzersen, ''Churchill on Democracy Revisited'', (24 January 2005)

★ The International Endowment For Democracy (progressive scholarship, critiques of democracy)
;Alternatives and improvements - see also Wikocracy, E-democracy and Futarchy

★ Republic

★ Democratic Manifesto

★ Conducting new experiments with democracy, ''Ethics & Democracy''

★ Democratic Deficit

★ ''On Democracy'' by James Russell Lowell

★ simpol.org — Plan to limit global competition and facilitate the emergence of a sustainable, sane global civilization.

★ Students for Global Democracy

★ Fourfold Social Order (The four-way-path-model of a future democracy)