Cultural democracy - Summary This is the summary of the conference or debate between the two speakers Mr. Jerry Sambuaga and Mr. Lee Nathanael Santoso, discussing the topic of Cultural Democracy. The first topic that is discussed was on the ideal form of democracy. Mr. Jerry said that the ideal form of democracy is the one that prioritize freedom, to have liberalism implemented, which will eventually lead to individualism. In his opinion liberalism should be implemented in all aspects, such as in politics and economy.
The examples of liberalism in politics are presidential election or parties, whereas the example of liberalism in economy is human rights. The freedom of speech, freedom to express opinions, since 1998, is the key to liberalism (direct democracy). On the other hand, when discussing the topic on the ideal form of democracy, Mr. Nathanael raises up the question "Whether democracy is universal or locally? " as his comeback. People now have human rights, the right to choose what they think democracy is. He said that in Singapore the government plays a larger role compared than the role of freedom of speech (representative democracy).
Mr. jerry said that democracy is invented in the west, and the democracy in Indonesia is still very fragile, there are aspects that have not yet been touched such as civil society, law enforcement, etc. There is a statement that Mr. Jerry gave that Mr. Nathanael also agrees on, and that is "Democracy is not a destination but a goal". Mr. Nathanael added that democracy indeed is a mean or a goal, and the goal is not democracy but to make sure that every people have basic necessities (security, etc). Mr.
Nathanael asked a rhetorical question, " which political system that can guarantee their country to be flexible enough to attain political grid lock? " From his point of view, Singapore is the closest one that has been able to achieve this. The second topic that the moderator discussed was, "Should a country this big (Indonesia) use a federal system or a unitary system? " Mr. Nathanael said that our country should adopt a mix of the two systems. From Mr. jerry's point of view, Indonesia should use a federal system, because Indonesia is very diverse, if we force something it can cause damages. Mr. Nathanael debated Mr.
Jerry's statement by saying that Singapore also has diversity, but they know how to harmonized the different point of views, opinions, etc. He said, "Minorities and other ethnicity receive the right to take part, to give a voice. ” Mr. Jerry debated Mr. Nathanael’s statement by saying that Singapore has an oppressive or an authoritarian system, instead of having a freedom of speech. “Singapore has a good system but can it last with that system? Indonesia may not yet be successful now, but with the existence of liberty, and opportunity given for people to be able to govern, may lead Indonesia to become a developed country. Mr. Nathanael debated Mr. Jerry’s statement saying, “The authoritarian system in Singapore is different compared to China, in Singapore the law is clear, you can have a say on criticizing the government, but you must have facts to support it. Mr. Jerry’s opinion is that our country is best suited with having a little number parties, because a large number of parties slows down decision making, and does nut suit the presidential system. While Mr. Nathanael said that democracy is not about political parties, part of government, it is about achieving national interests.
He said that, “only the parties with money that can win (in indo), but in Singapore if you have a good vision you will be heard”. “Should democracy control freedom? ” Mr. Jerry said that one’s freedom of expression could violate another's freedom of expression. Freedom should be controlled but not limited. Democracy may not be the best system, but it is still better to educate the people to participate. He added, “Freedom of rights of Singapore must be developed. ” Mr. Nathanael commented, “Singapore are convinced that this is the system for them, the issue is Singapore’s system should be more relevant. Singapore’s human rights can’t be compared with Indonesia’s priority of economic prosperity. Cultural Democracy Critical Analysis Cultural Democracy is the term for a philosophy or policy emphasizing pluralism, participation, and equity within and between cultures. Which consists of a set of related commitments such as, protecting and promoting cultural diversity, and the right to culture for everyone in our society and around the world;? encouraging active participation in community cultural life;? enabling people to participate in policy decisions that affect the quality of our cultural lives; and ? ssuring fair and equitable access to cultural resources and support. There are three basic types of democracy: Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented, and Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters.
In my opinion, I think the ideal form of democracy should be the one where liberalism is highly considered, but where there is also a balance in government involvement. Because, as the people, we know what our country needs most, but with the diversity that our country possess, and with the different opinions that people have, there should be a representative democracy that can represent the people and chooses the best decisions for the people and the country. Should democracy control freedom?
I think that freedom is both a positive and a negative think, if not controlled properly. People have different opinions, and if all of them have the freedom of speech, then there will be a moment where their freedom of expression will clash with others’ freedom of expression. That is why that freedom should also be controlled to a point of degree where people would still have the freedom of speech. The main reason why Indonesia has not been able to reach its full potential is because we have weak institutions, hence weak democracy.
Indonesia should learn the complexity that is democracy, the many aspects that is consists of such as legal certainty, transparency, freedom, etc. The one thing that Indonesia should be able to do to improve as a country is by knowing how to prioritize. Of course, in democracy alone there are many aspects that it consists of, and to manage this by knowing which to prioritize first, to the extent where all the aspects will be covered one by one. Indonesia should be consistent in following or running a liberal system.
Of course, there are processes that need to be done; we need to fight for the freedom of the economy. The best solution is to have a modification based on the aspiration of the people. We should be able to learn, and adopt all the good elements that each country possesses, mix them up and implement them as our democratic system. By: Pamela Lemmuela (04320120057) FISIP/HI/2012 RESEARCH : ? Democracy? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A woman casts her vote in the second round of the French presidential election of 2007 Part of the Politics series|
Democracy| History · Outline| Basic forms| * Direct * Representative| Variants| * Anticipatory * Consensus * Deliberative * Demarchy * Economic * Electronic * Grassroots * Illiberal * Inclusive * Liberal * Non-partisan * Ochlocracy * Participatory * Radical * Religious * Representative direct * Sociocracy * Soviet * Totalitarian * Other| Politics portal| * v t e| Part of the Politics series| Basic forms ofgovernment| Power structure| * Confederal * Federal * Hegemony * Imperial * Unitary| Power source| Democracy * Direct * Representative * Other * Monarchy * Absolute * Constitutional * Oligarchy * Aristocracy * Meritocracy * Military junta * Plutocracy * Stratocracy * Technocracy * Timocracy * Other * Anarchy * Authoritarianism * Autocracy * Anocracy * Despotism * Dictatorship * Kritarchy * Republic * Theocracy * Totalitarianism| List of forms of government| Politics portal| * v t e|
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. The term originates from the Greek ?????????? (demokratia) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from ????? demos) "people" and ?????? (kratos) "power" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ???????????? "rule of an elite". The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. [2] Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of citizens executes its will. One form of emocracy is direct democracy, in which citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions. [3] Contents [hide] * 1 Definition * 2 History * 2. Ancient origins * 2. 2 Middle Ages * 2. 3 Modern era * 3 Countries * 4 Types * 4. 1 Basic forms * 4. 2 Variants * 4. 3 Non-governmental * 5 Theory * 5. 1 Aristotle * 5. 2 Rationale * 5. 3 Ideal forms * 5. 4 Practice * 5. 5 Criticism * 6 Development * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links| [edit] Definition While there is no universally accepted definition of "democracy,"[4] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. 5] 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. [6][7] One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i. e. overeignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality. [8] The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that 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 lements of civil society outside the government. [citation needed] 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 (while maintaining judicial independence). [citation needed] 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 also are applicable to private organizations. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. by whom? ] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[9] and procedurally. [10] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests. 11][12] 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. [13] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. [14] While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. 15][16] [edit] History Main article: History of democracy [edit] Ancient origins See also: Athenian democracy Cleisthenes, "father of Athenian democracy", modern bust. The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens. [17][18] Led by Cleisthenes, Athenians established what is generally held as the first democracy in 508-507 BCE. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy. [19] Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[20] and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens. [21] All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners (???????? metoikoi), and males under 20 years old. [citation needed] Of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 inhabitants of Athens, there were between 30,000 and 60,000 citizens. citation needed] The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns. [citation needed] Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. 22] Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word for "rights"[23]), the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person. [24] 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. [25] However, many notable exceptions did occur. [citation needed] [edit] 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 region of Indian Subcontinent (within a aste system), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (10% of population), the Althing in Iceland, the Logting in the Faeroe 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 divided the Mali 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.
Magna Carta, 1215, England The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta, which 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[26]), 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. 26] The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead. [27] 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. In North America, the English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established colonies in New England whose governance was democratic and which contributed to the democratic development of the United States. 28] [edit] Modern era [edit] 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 20th century. 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. [29]
The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy. Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848. [30] In 1848, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government. [31] 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. 32] 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, often only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. 33] However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, such 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. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[34] 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. [35][36] [edit] 20th and 21st centuries The number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy. 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. 37] World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[38]), 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 fell 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. 39] By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although most 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 Soviet 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. Some researchers consider that contemporary Russia is not a true democracy and instead resembles a form of dictatorship. 40] The Economist's Democracy Index as published in December 2011, with greener colours representing more democratic countries and clearly authoritarian countries in dark red. 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). [41] 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. [42] In 2010 the United Nations declared September 15 the International Day of Democracy. 43] [edit] Countries The following countries are categorized by the Democracy Index 2011 as Full democracy:[44] 1. Norway? 2. Iceland? 3. Denmark? 4. Sweden? 5. New Zealand | 6. Australia? 7. Switzerland? 8. Canada? 9. Finland? 10. Netherlands | 11. Luxembourg ? 12. Ireland? 13. Austria? 14. Germany? 15. Malta| 16. Czech Republic ? 17. Uruguay? 18. United Kingdom? 19. United States? 20. Costa Rica| 21. Japan? 22. South Korea? 23. Belgium? 24. Mauritius? 25.
Spain| The Index assigns 53 countries to the next category, Flawed democracy: Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, India, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Zambia[44] [edit]
Types See also: List of types of democracy Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. [45][46] 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. 47][48][49] World's states colored by form of government as of 20111 Presidential republics2| Semi-presidential republics2| Parliamentary republics2| Single-party republics| Parliamentary constitutional monarchies| Absolute monarchies| Military dictatorships| Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power| Republics with an executive president dependent on a parliament| Countries which do not fit any of the above systems| | This map was complied according to the Wikipedia list of countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2Several states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by outsiders as authoritarian states. This map presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy. The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system. [edit] Basic forms [edit] Direct
Main article: Direct democracy Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in 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. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: Landsgemeinde of the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, example for direct democracy in Switzerland 1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3.
Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise. Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. [14] [edit]
Representative Main article: Representative democracy Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. [50] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through 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 the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. [edit] Parliamentary Main article: Parliamentary system Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters.
Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people. [51][52][53][54][55] Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal. 56] In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. [edit] Presidential Main article: Presidential system Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections.
The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. [56] The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily.
This provides some measure of separation of powers. In consequence however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas. [56] A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country. 56] [edit] Constitutional Main article: Constitutional democracy A constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
In a constitutional democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere. [edit] Hybrid Some modern democracies that are predominately representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic.
These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies[57] or semi-direct democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U. S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives. Although managed by a representative legislative body, Switzerland allows for initiatives and referendums at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum.
The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. [citation needed] In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums.
Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters. [58] In New England Town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a local direct democracy and a state government which is representative. For example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have an opportunity to speak and by heard on political matters. 59] [edit] Variants [edit] Republic Main article: Republicanism In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [60] 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 or appointed head of government such as a prime minister. 61] The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[62] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. " As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U. S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy? ". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it. "[63] Queen Elizabeth II, a constitutional monarch. [edit] Constitutional monarchy Main article: constitutional monarchy
Initially after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elite 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, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) 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 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 lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States). [edit] Socialist Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through 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. Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets).
This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism) Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians. —Che Guevara, Speech, Uruguay, 1961[64] [edit] Anarchist Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy.
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. [65] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[66] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. [67] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy. 68] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government"[69] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent. [edit] Demarchy Main article: Demarchy Sometimes called "democracy without elections", demarchy uses sortition to choose decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official.
The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. [edit] Consensus Main article: Consensus democracy Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule. [edit] Supranational Qualified majority voting is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states.
This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected. Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many others. European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution. [edit] Non-governmental 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 organizations decide policy and leadership by voting. Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the principle of one share, one vote. [edit] Theory A marble statue of Aristotle. [edit] Aristotle Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). 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). 70][71] For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, ....
And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. —Aristotle, Politics 1317b (Book 6, Part II) [edit] Rationale Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of the fundamental rationale for democracy: aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy, and radical democracy. [72] [edit] Aggregative The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit citizens’ preferences and aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt.
Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. 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. [73] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner. According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it 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. Governments will tend to 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. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments.
Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy. [74] 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. [75] Some[who? ] see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who? ] may see it as a problem that only voters decide policy, as opposed to a 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. [edit] Deliberative Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by deliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregration of preferences that occurs in voting.
Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups. [76][77][78] If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. [edit] Radical 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. [edit] Ideal forms [edit] Inclusive Main article: Inclusive Democracy Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i. . self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i. e. he assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy.
The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates. [edit]
