A democracy is not just one thing ñ it is like a fabric, made up of many threads ñ threads of ideas and practices, of institutions and individuals, all woven into each nationís own complex mix of cultural, historical, and geographical heritage. Each democracy is unique. But there are also common threads found in democracies all around the world.
As Winston Churchill points out above, democracies are never perfect. "The government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds good, but Oscar Wildeís version "The bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people" can be true too. George Bernard Shaw wrote of democracy: "It substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." After reading through this section you might like to think about how the common threads help make a healthy democracy, and how they can be used (or abused) to work against the principles of democracy.
In a democracy, power is spread amongst the people in various ways. It is not concentrated in the hands of one person (autocracy or monarchy) or small group of people (oligarchy or aristocracy). It may not produce results that satisfy everybody, but it is less likely to produce results that satisfy only the small ruling group.
Any dissatisfaction amongst a small percentage of the population must be weighed against the dissatisfaction of the majority, as portrayed by the democrat Aung San Suu Kyi in the quote below. Democracy is meant to ensure that citizens enjoy the rights (and responsibilities) which are part and parcel of that democracy.
"If you asked an ordinary Burmese why they want democracy the answer will probably be: 'I want to have the basic right to try to make a decent living for myself without being frightened all the time'."
Aung San Suu Kyi in an interview by John Pilger for The New Internationalist (June 1996) 1
The vote
The most common thread of democracy is the vote. In democracies citizens have the power to vote. Citizens vote to elect a government (general election) or have a direct vote on an issue of national importance (referendum or plebiscite).
General elections
It is the citizen's vote which decides who will sit in the assemblies. It is in the assemblies that the citizens' representatives debate and make the laws. It is the citizens' vote (directly or indirectly) that decides who makes up the executive which actually governs.
Referendum or plebiscite
A referendum or plebiscite is a system by which a specific question is decided upon by a direct vote of all eligible citizens.
But just having a vote does not guarantee democratic government. The voting system also has to be fair and free and the vote has to be meaningful. For example, in Australia when you go to a polling booth your name is crossed off a list, so that nobody can vote more than once, and you fill in the ballot paper in a private booth. When the ballot papers are counted, people called scrutineers oversee the counting to ensure it is done correctly.
Apart from voting, there are other threads that need to be woven into a democracy.
Basic freedoms
freedom of speech
freedom of assembly
These freedoms allow different views to be expressed and allow individuals to combine together to be represented or a "common" voice heard.
Freedom of speech has led to many important pieces of legislation being passed or repealed in all democracies. This is because people have been able to speak about their ideas in many forums to many people, e.g. the anti-nuclear activist Dr Helen Caldicott, anti-land mine campaigner, HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, and Clean up Australia chair, Ian Kiernan.
Freedom of assembly has allowed the ideas of different individuals and groups to be heard, because people have been able to hear speakers debating ideas at assemblies.
When large groups of people have assembled for a specific purpose they have often influenced the course of events, e.g. the anti-Vietnam moratorium marches of the 1960s and 1970s and the people power marches in the Philippines against the Marcos regime in the 1980s.
Restrictions on freedoms
But freedoms have their limits, too. The rights of all people in a democracy need to be respected, and so speech or assembly are never completely free of restrictions. Every person holds these rights so one cannot impinge on another person's rights while exercising one's own.
Without restrictions, the rights of the many are sometimes ignored for the wants of the few or of one. This is seen in many 20th century dictatorships, such as Nazi Germany or Uganda under Idi Amin.
Laws and a country's constitution usually provide some protection from these extremes.
Often it is only in the Congress or Parliament or the Legislature itself where speech might be truly free, where members may make almost any statement without fear of being taken to court for libel or a damages action. But even here there will be rules about what is acceptable and what is not.
More than one political view
Democracies allow more than one political view to be expressed in an open discussion. In fact, criticism and open discussion are essential in a democratic system. They help prevent abuse of power by individuals or groups. If the opinions of certain groups are suppressed or do not get heard, then it is more likely that the needs and wants of those groups will be ignored. As such, the fewer voices that are heard, the greater the propensity toward an unhealthy democracy. Gandhi said, "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress".
Government
Not all countries have a written constitution and not all written constitutions are a complete "rule book" for a country. However, there exists, in all democracies, a series of checks and balances within the civic structures to ensure a democracy flourishes.
Some sort of guarantee must be provided within the law itself that everyone, including the government, is equal before the law and must follow the rules. Usually a democracy has separated its power to govern into three sections.
Separation of powers
The three arms of government are called the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Each branch has its own specified powers and roles and some independence from each other, whilst maintaining some ability to monitor each other. This is to prevent power being concentrated in the hands of one of the groups.
Further, an independent system of courts and judges must exist to arbitrate disputes or apparent law breaking.
Stability
Another essential thread in a strong democratic system is its ability to adapt to change. No democracy will be safe if, whenever it has a crisis or does something a group or individual doesn't like, the government breaks up in disarray, or is sacked, or a revolution breaks out, or the military take control.
A strong democratic system will always encounter crises; but eventually the system should be stable enough to find compromises or solutions in a democratic way.
Even if governments do fail or fall, the question can be put to the people again at the ballot box for their decision.
What are the features of a healthy democracy?
For a society to be democratic it needs first to believe that it is democratic. In order for a democracy to be healthy, it needs to have its citizens practice democracy at a grassroots level, as well as at a government level. Democratic practices need to be embedded throughout the society with citizens being active in many ways. The active citizen is able to:
understand how the institutions of government function (parliament or congress and courts of law)
criticise government policy without fear (debate)
feel political decisions are relevant to their lives and that these decisions are fair and reasonable (open and accountable government)
bring about change through actions (joining in) and be responsible to society for these actions.
Further, the citizens of a society must know and feel that they are equal to each other through the mechanisms of their constitutions. Otherwise democracy will exist only in name and governments will have opportunities to develop authoritarian strains. It can be hard work being an active citizen and making decisions about the direction of a community or society, but this is a fundamental aspect of democracy.
The role of the media is very important in a democracy. It can provide an independent assessment of events and government actions, and alert citizens to problems ensuring government accountability. However if the media is not independent, whether it be government or privately owned, it will not be able to investigate issues and inform the public. Private ownership of media can mean that information is a product to be sold and as such the selling can become a higher priority than the information. Media wholly controlled by the government can deliberately slant reporting in an attempt to create public opinion and influence the democratic process in favour of the government. The advent of the Internet has increased the potential for a wide range of interpretations of information to be accessible.
Healthy democracies are often those that are wealthy and economically stable. Economic instability and high levels of unemployment created some of the conditions that led to the destruction of democracy in Weimar Germany.
The visible features of a healthy democracy then, are: the vote, basic freedoms, separation of powers, more than one political view and stability. But there are more factors than these involved in a healthy democracy, some of which are listed below.
An active and informed citizenry being:
informed, that is have knowledge of moral, social and political issues as well as an understanding of how the three branches of government function
actively involved in the collective decision making process, with equal access to that process.
The nation needs a tradition of democracy. Historically, nations that adopted liberal values and a liberal constitution and then extended this to a democratic political system have tended to become more stable democracies. On the other hand countries that have created a democratic constitution without the experience of liberal traditions, such as the Weimar Republic, have tended to face problems of instability and have become prey to authoritarian forces.
The government has to be open and transparent. That is, government has open doors and open records, combined with open, honest and frequent elections. These constitute the best protection against corruption, mismanagement and lack of responsiveness in government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.
Pericles Funeral Oration quoted in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War 2.37.1 2
Note: http://www.abc.net.au/c...

<br />
Myles Higgins<br />
Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador<br />
<a href="http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/">http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/</a><br />
Democracy simply means rule by the people. In ancient Greece the people were sovereign partly because of the nature of nation states. Athens had the population roughly of my municipal ward, most would simply call it a large tribe. The point is that the people had POWER, they had no government overseeing them and nobody dictated policy to them.
What is different is that while we still have nation states, they almost always exist 'under' some other form of government. In canada at our local level, which in my case is about five times the size of Athens, the idea that people could decide abortion, justice, policing, taxation, in fact ALL issues would be considered ludicrous and a step backward.
What is happening is that we are redefining democracy to fit into our idea of empire, or country if you prefer. We might as well confine our arguments to canada and there many interesting facts stand out. First, it is an oxymoron to say that we should have 'freedom of speech' yet at the same time 'there must be restrictions to freedom of speech'. If you have restrictions then obviously there are things you simply aren't free to say. In Canada it depends on what you are saying, how loud you say it, and how many people pay attention to what your saying. We don't even need to go back to the fifties when communists were virtually blackmailed and blackballed out of existence-Canada of course used to have a popular Communist Party as well as a Nazi Party.
That there is no real freedom of assembly should be evident by anybody who has ever taken part in a protest. It isn't really freedom when you are surrounded and having pictures taken of you. The idea that government actually encourage demonstrators hasn't really been thought of.
Neither of those are necessary for democracy though. Many towns in the US and Switzerland still decide local matters by meeting once a year and voting either through ballot or even just the raising of the hands. That is democratic because the people have the power. Somebody could say something unpopular though and everybody else shouts him or her down. Likewise, one person may stand up and make a resolution that they should be crowned king and thereafter make all decisions for everybody. Everybody could shout him/her down and make a proclamation that no further resolutions be introduced to disband the democracy. It is still a democracy, but one could argue that the freedom of speech can be curtailed. Most wouldn't see it that way and if enough people were bothered they could simply change that and let the person continue to use up time to make their speech and then once again be shouted down.
One of the most interesting ironies of our current ideology is that much of the quotations about democracy that float around are voiced by its fiercest opponents. The british have never experienced anything remotely close to democracy, and Churchill had nothing but warm things to say about his good friend Stalin. It isn't just a coincidence that it is typically those benefitting from the tyranny of the minority who shoot off their mouths most eloquently about the tyranny of the majority.
The central theme of that is that political decisions are somehow 'right' or 'wrong'. This depends on ones own personal ideology and in a democracy it is obvious that there is no right or wrong, there are only preferences. That we disallow gay marriages is THOUGHT to be wrong by supporters and thought to be right by opponents says it all. We see good examples of this in the states where all of the states which had citizens initiatives to allow gay marriages failed. For supporters of gay marriage in Canada this was seen as being terrible, however, it is democratic.
The chief problem with democracy nowadays is how to align it with several layers of government. Can it be said to be a democracy if, as in the case of the states, a local resolution can be over-rided by a state one. Or, if a state makes a resolution through a citizens initiative it is overrided by a federal one. Or if any of the above happens and it is overridden by the courts, as is often the case.
This is why most democratic theorists claim that a democracy can only function in small groups. Switzerland is fairly close to that, although more and more power is going to the federal government, but since the country is not huge and many live in urban areas the citizens initiatives and frequent referenda make most people comfortable with that.
In canada we used to at least be closer to that, look back at prohibition and the temperance movement, at one time you'd have different counties with different liquor laws. You still see this in the states, and for my part I agree with it. If a collective group of people think liquor is immoral then they should be allowed to ban it from their locale, the people who want it would be free to go to the next town, hardly a difficult trek. In canada I feel the same way about Video lottery terminals, once upon a time a town could ban gambling and not be morally responsible for its outcome, yet now a central provincial government decides for everybody, thus making everybody responsible for its outcome.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. As most know I think Canada is 'democratic' in name only. Democracy doesn't mean you'll agree with every decision, and it doesn't always mean rights are protected. If you look at swiss referenda though you'll note that the idea that people will use democracy to infringe on individual rights is seriously overblown. Just as the idea that a small group of people are the best protectors of individual or collective rights.
One of the resident forum wits took umbrage to the reference to 'true', indicating:
<<The initial problem I have with your idea is your assumption that Direct Democracy is "true" democracy.
In a modern state, direct democracy is rule of the ignorant by the ignorant for no people's advantage. I am assuming that you are thinking of referenda and like devices.
Or do you see gatherings in the marketplaces?>>
Based on what I've seen to date, the above is a fairly common attitude. If you were to suggest to those holding this attitude that they basically don't believe in democracy, the howling would start. Regardless, the suggestion would hit pretty close to the mark.
As Marcarc indicated, it's really quite basic. Democracy means that people have the ability to directly participate in the decision making power of government. Where this is not the case, democracy doesn't exist. A nation may have some trappings of democracy however, this doesn't necessarily make the nation 'democratic'.
As Marcarc also points out, there are no right or wrong decisions in government, just decisions that we either agree with or don't.
I think this is the sticky point for some, given that many of us believe we know what is 'right', 'progressive', etc. and when others are too 'ignorant' to understand this, the decision should be made for them.
This type of anti-democratic attitude is equally likely to be found in both left and right wing elitists.
It boils down to whether you believe people have the right to make decisions on matters concerning their lives, whether these decisions agree with your personal views or not, or rather believe that people require 'strong leadership', 'guidance', etc. and/or that democracy is great so long as democratic decisions accord to our own personal views. The latter attitude is elitist and anti-democratic.
Obviously, democracy isn't a perfect system. None are. In any system you're going to see decisions that some don't agree with. However, direct democracy is the best system to ensure that all decisions will be agreed on by most, as opposed to at times being forced on most.
One obvious issue with direct democracy could be demonstrated by Marcarc's example re: same sex marriage initiatives failing in U.S. states. Without having access to the numbers, it's quite possible these initiatives didn't pass because those who don't have an issue with same sex marriage but, really could care less one way or another, might not be likely to make the effort required to vote. This could be overcome to some extent by making voting as simple as possible.
That aside, if most citizens in a democratic nation aren't supportive or confortable with a particular propsition, that's just the way things are. The good thing in democracy is that people have the right to keep working away to change viewpoints held by others.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
For the same sex debate you have to remember that most of the states that have citizens initiatives are western and southern states, in all those states banning same sex marriage was clearly the winner, usually to the tune of 75 - 80%. The lowest were the least 'rural', being Michigan and Oregon where the vote was much closer. Again, you may be right that in those ridings there is the general tendency for young people to not bother voting. Likewise it does take work to get a citizens initiative on the ballot.
The same sex debate is a complex one, particularly in the states. We have to keep in mind that it is ONLY one issue. The question, as stated above, is whether people want a dictatorship which they hope they will always agree with, or a democracy where, again, the chance is always there one's own opinion won't be the 'status quo'.
I didn't intend my point to relate to this particular issue. It just happened to be a good example for the point I was trying to make.
One of the concerns expressed in recent years has been citizen 'apathy' towards voting.
I personally don't see this as a problem. If a person can't see any significant difference between parties and could care less who gets in or can't be bothered researching the platforms, issues, etc., why should they vote?
However, for those who see it as desirous for democracy that everyone vote, it is a concern.
This perceived 'apathy' issue has been expressed by some for DD. One concern expressed re: DD has been getting folks out to vote for issues that don't really concern them.
Again, I don't see this as a significant issue however, apparently it is for some.
The same sex marriage issue is one that will be of great concern to holding strong beliefs either way. However, I'd guess that in Canada, most don't hold any strong belief in this regard. These people, whether young or not, may uninclined to spend an hour or so of their time to seek out a polling station to vote on an issue that they do not see as impacting them. So it may be that the majority of those who could vote on 'specific interest' initiatives may not avail themselves of the opportunity to do so.
As mentioned, I don't see any particular problem with this, in that democracy gives one the right to choose not to vote, and live with the consequences of that decision, as well as the right to vote.
However, making voting as painless as possible seems to me the best way to encourage the greatest possible participation for all referendum issues.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).