The single citation offered for the inclusion of the "republics of ancient India," in the "Ancient origins" section, is an unpublished paper by an associate professor, who admits he cannot read the primary sources. How can this citation be considered worthy scholarship?
The notion of the Vedic "republics" is not uncontroversial; even a cursory search using JSTOR, produces multiple articles that highlight the difficulties presented by the source texts. The primary sources cited as evidence for the existence and constitution of the "republics," are based on Vedic canonical texts. This Vedic evidence is considered to be "scant" and of "uncertain significance." Where political assemblies are mentioned, the information provided is considered "insufficient" to state anything "precise about their nature." While, it is left that the forms, sabhci and samiti, with their construed political connotations, might be imagined as "semi-republican" assemblages, there is hardly enough evidence to characterize the polities as full fledged republics.
all quotes from: T. Burrow. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 34, No. 2. (1971), pp. 416-417.
another source: N. K. Wagle. The American Historical Review, Vol. 77, No. 4. (Oct., 1972), pp. 1170-1171. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonof76 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be several places where Democracy and Republic are compared in a historical context, often referring to how the founding fathers used democracy to mean "direct democracy" and republic to mean "representative democracy". There is a section is Republicanism, there is a section in Democracy, and there is some information scattered in Republic and in several orther articles and footnotes. I think these should all be merged in the section under Democracy entitled " Democracy and Republic" as it currently has the most useful and referenced information. Perhaps, a new article can be created altogether that just focuses on the history definitions of these words. JavidJamae —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What does the phrase "free and fair elections" (used in the "liberal democracy" subsection) mean? I think that the ambiguous qualifiers "free" and "fair" should be replaced with something more specific, such as "secret ballot", "universal suffrage", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drono ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
The citation actually says "In General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of direct democracy designed to replace representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions. Unless we are to assume that Proudhon is simply self-contradictory, his criticisms of a strictly political form of direct democracy cannot have been meant to apply to the economic or industrial form of democracy which he himself had been advocating for a number of years. But upon what basis can Proudhon distinguish the two?"
If Proudhon "rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy" why does our article say "He 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", especially since the refernce points out that he opposed unanimous democracy.
Do we need Proudhon at all? His claims are confusing to me and do not add to this article. What does he teach us about democracy? Raggz 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is confusing. Proudhon's ideas are the reason? They are well-known to be contradictory. How can we make this section better? Raggz 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Having read Proudhon's wiki entry, it sounds like he opposed any form of government control on individuals, whether they identified with a majority or minority. It does sound like he was for democratic discourse among free people. He was just against binding anyone by anyone else's decisions, it sounds like. He is an interesting thinker and worth including in a study of democracy, whether you like him or not, agree or disagree with some or all of his views. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
We have in our article "Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favor of non-majoritarian consensus". Isn't a non-majoritarian consensus a synonym for minority rule and a majoritarian consensus a synonym for majority rule? Raggz 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We have attempted to describe all of the List of types of democracy in this article. Please review this page, because I propose (1) moving almost all discussion on forms of democracy to that page and (2) referencing this other article in our opening paragraph. This is a major conceptual revision, but the article needs serious streamlining. Discussion? Raggz 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Democracy as a system based on the political vote has little meaning if there is not also clean water, education, housing etc and, in particular, some form of secure income for all individuals. Binary economics deepens political democracy by addressing the key underlying economics issue of ensuring that a market economy works for everybody in an effective, efficient and just way."
This section is OR, so will soon be deleted if not then supported. Also it should also appear first within the list of types of democracies before it appears within this article. An example of an actual binary democracy would be necessary for the Reader to put it into context. Alternatively, a statement that it is an untested theory AND references suggesting that it has relevance would be necessary. Raggz 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"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." Presently this entry is unsupported and constitutes OR. I have no problem with keeping it when it is brought up to Policy standards (see binary democracy comments which may apply here as well). However, I won't just delete it but will wait for this section to develop and be supported. Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"Minoritarianism is a political philosophy where various minorities are given some degree of minority rule." This is an important addition that will help the Reader. Can you link it to other articles and ofer one solid citation? Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I insist that editors use 'most reliable' sources and give attribution of their sources with their edits to this article. Please familiarize yourself with, and follow, the guidelines of WP:V and WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Explaining my most recent revert: I don't see your attribution using 'most reliable' sources. Per WP:ATT, most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. Websites do not qualify as 'most reliable' sources. Use books and journals, published by universities to be safe. Sorry, to maintain quality in this article, we must be careful about the quality of the sourcing. SaltyBoatr 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The Anti-Democratic Thought article is poorly constructed. It lacks substance, it reads like an essay, and there are no sources cited; we need deep, intelligent writing for such a complex faculty of political philosophy. Until we can approach that, I say we move the article into the Criticisms section of this article and work from there. VolatileChemical 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very pleased with how far this article has come in the past four months. Good work everyone. Raggz 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The very concept of a codified national constitution was revolutionary in the history of political systems. The first such constitution was the Constitution of the United States of America, written in 1787, which began to function in 1789. The second was the Constitution adopted by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on May 3, 1791. These two charters of government form an important milestone in the history of democracy. Poland and the United States, though distant geographically, showed some notable similarities in their approaches to the design of political systems.[1] By contrast to the great absolute monarchies, both countries were remarkably democratic. The kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected, and the Commonwealth's parliament (the Sejm) possessed extensive legislative authority. Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland afforded political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners.
Poland was only listed among "non democratic regimes" in between the World Wars. Which was very, very stupid - unless you count the modern Russia as the "non-democratic regime", as it's similarily a strongman-led parliamentary republic with two chambers (oh wait, you mostly don't).
Fix it up people. -- HanzoHattori 08:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Democrasy is about being free and chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.5 ( talk) 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with having this phrase in the intro. Yes it is relatively vague but that's the whole point - the article then goes on to set out various "types" of democracy in more detail. I don't understand in what way that isn't clear. Consent can derive via elections, indirect representation, via direct participation, via referendums etc, as the article makes sets out further down. To say democracy is just about elections is pretty simplistic, especially as the definitive statement in the intro (I'll leave aside the point that in my view, the whole intro is incorrectly written as if the word refers merely to a form of government). -- Nickhh 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Phrases like "consent of the governed", "participation in government" and "free and fair elections" are just slogans and have no specific meaning. What does any of those things mean? How do you know that the people "consent" to be governed? How do the people "participate in government"? What makes elections "free" or "fair"? If you can supply clear interpretations of those phrases, write them out. As they stand, they mean nothing.
By the way, what makes your (Nickhh's) choice of definition, better than mine (Drono's)? Spare me the lecture. -- Drono 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For someone who can't be bothered to go into a revert war, you are very busy reverting, without any clear reason. You admit that your definition is vague - why then do you bother to insert it? Either come up with something useful or let it go. If you don't know what "consent of the governed" means, why is it there? Are you in the habit of writing things that don't have a clear meaning? What part of the article explains the concept of consent?
"Competitive" means that the elections are a competition for votes: two or more independent candidates or parties are trying to convince the voters to vote for them. One can always argue about details of definitions, but "fair and free" is so vague that it is useless. Are elections in the U.S., for example, free and fair? What about elections in Russia? The term is used in a partisan manner to legitimize certain elections and de-legitimize others.-- Drono 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First, I think that your definition of "free and fair" goes some way toward making things specific enough to be worth writing. Saying that anyone can go onto the ballot is a good condition - the only problem with it is that there is no country in which anyone can just go onto the ballot. If there was such a country, you could expect ballots with thousands of candidates. For everyone to then have a "fair chance" of winning, you would have to have all those thousands of candidates and their political ideas be recognizable to the public. This not only doesn't happen, but is clearly impossible.
My point is that there is a wide gulf between democratic ideology (which is really not about elections at all) and "democratic" practice (which in reality is no more than competitive elections). You can define either the ideology or the practice or both, but do not mix the two up.
BTW, you say: "I'm bored of idiots who bully their own irrational POV into Wikipedia pages." Note the personal tone of your comments and compare them to mine. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be you who is the "idiotic, irrational bully"? -- Drono 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, that phrase was OTT and came out of my frustration, as much with other editors as with you. However that in turn came from the fact that you were reverting without explaining why - and then when you did eventually respond on the talk page, initially accused me of "lecturing" you and then suggested I put phrases into Wikipedia that I didn't understand. I took both of those as being pretty personal. Anyway, that aside we simply disagree - I think the article SHOULD describe both theory and practice as long as it does so clearly and distinctly (which to be honest it doesn't, either in the long-standing version I was trying to maintain, or with the newer phrasing you introduced). In addition I would argue that there are in fact plenty of examples of democratic practice that do not depend on elections, for example referenda, or direct democracy at a local level. -- Nickhh 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for apologizing - accepted.
I support handling both theory and practice (separately). I think that the best way to define democracy as an idea or theoretical concept is as a government where citizens are political equals (that is, they all have the same amount of influence on public policy). In this I rely on Robert A. Dahl, one of the most well-known modern theorists of democracy. See, for example, his book "On Political Equality".
As for practice, I think that in reality it is (at the state level, and at any level beyond very small groups) mostly about competitive elections, but you are right to point out that some secondary procedures do exist. -- Drono 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason you cannot separate the theory and practice of democracy is that to do so you would have to elevate one form of democracy over another. This discussion of democracy is itself democratic. To be specific it is democratic theorizing of democratic theory. If you try to censor the discussion and theorizing process of democracy, you would be taking an authoritarian (i.e. anti-democratic) approach to theoretical practice. Ultimately, you have to recognize that democracy is an idea(l) and that in practice, realities always fall short of ideals. However, the moment you start modifying the ideal to reflect the reality, you lose the ideal itself. As such you also end up losing the reality that practices and ideals co-exist and mutually influence each other's discourse. Your best bet is to continue to pursue a theoretical discourse of democracy (doing so democratically) and, at the same time, critically explore practical applications of the theory - highlighting examples of how you see the practice falling short of the ideal. It is also legitimate to note that some of the ideals, or at least the language expressing them, may fall short of adequately describing anything (e.g. "free and fair" elections, etc. However, the best approach to these criticisms is to acknowledge their value and attempt to cultivate a discourse that seeks to flesh them out into meaningfulness instead of wielding destructive critiques like "self-contradicting." If you see something as "self-contradicting," have the decency to enlighten others about the specifics instead of just throwing out the critique like spitting out something tasteless or flushing a toilet. Negative critique is legitimate if it's meant in good faith, but it has to be positively supported or at least supportable upon questioning. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear such statements often form right wing extremists and here they are on the introductory material:
"Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority"."
First of all, representative democracy is not opposing majority rule. In fact, it is based on it, but it's not direct democracy. If it wasn't based on it, representative democracy could just drop 'democracy' and be good ol' "representative" totalitarianism. The d**n word "democracy" is used in the phrase 'representative democracy' for heaven's sake, it's obvious representative democracy is democratic.
Second, using the very phrase "the tyranny of the majority" should be obvious why there's a problem and I wonder why I even have to mention it. It's statements such as this that are constantly, repeatedly heard from "wonderful" leaders of totalitarian regimes. If you want it explained more, history has shown that gradually civilizations move from 'kings' to democracy in advanced states of their existence. First instinctive animal rule of the toughest animal/homo sapiens, then reason kicks in for more "humane" states of politics. It is obvious the majority is never 100% right. But it is also obvious it's the best there is when all the alternatives require totalitarianism to a smaller or larger extend. -- Leladax 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I support democracy over other systems, but I think your reading too much into the statement above, its simply expressing mpore than one view on representative democracy, whereas you seem to wish for the only view to be that representative democracy is always good. As I said I support democracy, but I culd make a case against it, and it isnt neccessarily the evolution of politics, it is simply the line that has been taken increasingly in the 20th centuary after the defeat of facism, and is still far from being accepted by all (only westerners really) as a perfect form of government. Democracies have often proven to be weak, and whether you may like it or not dictatorship and oligarchy have made many progressive changes in this world of ours. (we woudlnt be speaking this language if it hadnt). The reason democracy is mainly supported now in the West is not because it 'evolved' but because living standards are high and we wish to change little in our countries (compartively with poorer ones), therefore we support demoracy because we wish to keep ourselves balanced in the place we are in. Others (with some evidence to support them) view democracies as weak, as many are, and democracy often means rule by the majority, which in turn means that if a selfish or uneducated populace turns out to vote at elections, then the country could be in seriosu problems. If democacy is so perfect and the natural evolution, then there would not have been such a regression in the 20th centuary, and Weimer Germany (the most liberal democracy and arguably the most democratic country in the World of the time) would not have given way to dictatorship.
Also America is no more a candidate for being the first demofcacry than any other country listed, and I dont know why it is refered to as such. Other countries had popular voting, although exluding wwomen, just as the Americans, so I dont know why it is classed as the first liberal democracy, it is not, as seen by the list presented. I get irritated when I see patriotic American jargen plastered over wikipedia. Rob.G.P.A 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A point I would also like to make is true democacy is shaky, and most countries today dont achieve absolute democracy or even close to it. In the UK (where I am from) the idea of democracy is obviously uninspiring (therefore not an 'evolution'). Only 40% of people turn out to elections, which creates a 40% minority, of that 40% minority (usually better-off middle and buisness class) the party with the most votes gets in, it is not neccessary to have a majority of that 40% minority (your still following :)?). So in most elections in reality you could have a party representing 10-15% of the population.
That party is solely elected by unproportional representation (i.e. the number of MP's elected to constituencies), and the people have basically no say in government policy after that point, with no referendums or plebicites, and no election of the leader of that party (the Prime minister) who has more power over the way the country is run compartievly than the president of the USA has over how the USA is run.
SO basically in the UK we only live in a nominal democracy, and it does not suite everyone. In some senses a popular supported dicatorship, like Hitler's (who had the highest vote at the time) is actually more democratic than the multi party system we have today. But I still am going to throw in my chips with democracy, for all the good it does me -_-. Rob.G.P.A 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think much bias towards democracies is shown above in addition to general falsehoods about its supposed 'advanced' state. Tyranny of the majority is very real as all democracies, whether 'limited' by parchment constitutions or not, eliminate volunteerism in the minority. -- Thorsmitersaw 9 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I found the criticisms section rather lacking. Objections to demcoracy from many historical points of view such as Jefferson, Bastiat, Calhoun, Rothbard would be an excellent addition. A brief mention of democracies failures and criticisms found within "Democracy: the god that failed" by Hans Herman Hoppe, a leading market anarchist and economist who studied under Rothbard would be a excellent reference or mention to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism is of course subjective. Going back into the history has us looking back to a time when issues such as lobby, media and immunity were unheard of compaired to the current model. This section therefore comes down to what is a fair description of the problems. Finn is a world authourity given his work in equitable obligations, fiduciary duties. Anyone tampering with his work simply has no idea what those issues are and should leave it to others who do -- WingateChristopher 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this under the current form of the criticism section?: "Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocrats, fascists, monarchists, and communists. For debates on specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article, such as Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Polyarchy, Sortition, etc." If you consider that neutral, your a damn fool Additionally, I do not care what sort of work someone has done on obligation and authority, criticism comes from the fact that democracy IS authoritarian from anarchists of several individualist stripes, from minarchists, and "classical" liberals, etc. A fair description of a system must include the thoughts of those who have no favor for it as well. Otherwise it is more biased typical wikipedia nonsense . - Thorsmitersaw
Woudl anyone else be interested in helping me in this endeavor? Or perhaps creating a new article entitled something like... "Criticisms of Democracy". If that is appropriate for Wikipedia. If not then perhaps 'anarchist criticisms of democracy' or something equally as specific. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thorsmitersaw (
talk •
contribs)
04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
When discussing the contribution of life on the American frontier to democracy, it should be mentioned that this is a theory, however widely accepted. The point of the theory is that Americans on the frontier, isolated from cental authority, developed democratic and egalitarian communities, but also showed brutality toward aboriginal people, and lacked adequate judicial procedures. Supposedly, this new type of democracy influenced American attitudes to democracy, individuality and egalitarianism. This process did not occur in Canada, Australia, South America, or Russia, which also had new settlements, because the settlements remained under central control and had no need to develop new systems for maintaining order. Incidentally, the term "frontier", which means border, generally refers to the American frontier only.
I think it would be helpful to include these points. -- The Four Deuces 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There are 'some' aboriginals in Canada who would not accept that statement that Canada's experience with the aboriginals, the immigrants, those at the bottom of the social ladder were not treated well, or at least justly.
(we generalize for the sake of arguement and ignore the world of half-truths. For example, the government has at times given money to these same 'aboriginals' and some within those given money squandered it on themselves and did not give any to their fellow aboriginals. Happens today.
Yes the American experience or Canadian experience was bad, but who was responsible...? That is a difficult one to call.—
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, fascists, monarchists, and anarchists" Whaaaat????
Democracy is not the rule in all the world, and it is seen as obvious mostly in the United States!
There has been a lot of criticism about democracy since it was created, to the point that it probably deserves its own article rather than a simplistic paragraph. Sdistefano 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Cause? = Ultramarine.-- 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. Many people living in democracies, have in the past questioned the 'democratic nature' of the system. Seems the 'boys' clubs want to protect their game, and do so.
The American and Canadian system while they preach the gospel of being democratic, a critical examination of what they are, and what they should be suggests they are not 100% democratic, but rather 20-40%, creating a dictatorial position. Half and half.
The observation is that "the People' get a free vote but 'the system' takes the power from 'the people' and gives it to one person. This is far from a direct democracy, far, far from it. Even if you allowed a council of three or more to vote, which happens on some municipal councils, is a positive step, but where is the 'link' between 'the people' and the exeuctive vote ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if American and Canadian systems were 100% democratic, wether democracy is something good or not is also open to discussion. Many countries have monarchies to this day, and some of them do quite well. A lot has been written about the faults of democracy with respect to other systems (spreading of the idiocy of the masses, the lack of an entity that is inherently respected, the temporary charges that don't personally involve the man in power, etc etc etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdistefano ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
response: there is no such thing as "100% democratic." Democracy is always co-present with authoritarianism. Democracy is actually nothing more than critical resistance to authoritarianism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, and other repressive governance. Voting is just one institution designed to check the power of political authorities. The courts and other intergovernmental checking mechanisms are also supposed to facilitate questioning, criticism, and discussion about governance among those in government. In a republic where government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," democracy may be said to be present when citizens do not feel any aversion to voicing differences of opinion or otherwise engaging in ideological conflict with any other citizen. To my knowledge, the will to democracy has never been able to 100% overcome all forms of aversion, or just shyness, about engaging in ideological conflict. The goal of democratic governing should be to remove such barriers and institutionalize support mechanisms that help channel criticism and dissent to others so that they may address it as such. The goal is never to end or reduce criticism or dissent, but rather to facilitate its expression - and ensure that it is taken into account in governance. However, to assume that lack of 100% democracy constitutes failure is misconstrued and dangerously discouraging to continued attention to improving democracy. Democracy can never be 100% as long as the will to authority and power exist, which cannot be destroyed. Authoritarianism and repression can only be diagnosed and treated, while at the same time developing more democratic discourses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? This article has greatly improved. It remains propelt controversial, but the prior blatent pov biasis has been minimized. Should this tag remain? I think not. I plan to delete it if there is no objection. Raggz ( talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see my point above. The frontier theory is quoted as fact, then inaccurately described. The article implies that while democracy developed in America, Australia and Canada were comparable to tsarist Russia, which is not part of the theory at all. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 10:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I would delete the theory altogether. The article is factual and does not attempt to explain why or how democracy developed except in this one case. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Some considerations...as to if the current discussion presents this particular perspective.
LOGIC INCONSISTENCIES.
Often the statement by Churchill, the second is taken as gospel truth; this is incorrect.
The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. -Sir Winston Churchill Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried. -Sir Winston Churchill
Okay by examining the two and reading between the lines, it is somewhat leading to the realization that 'the average voter' could not lead a democracy. The second statement does not actually compare all the others to a 'democracy', for the 'ones tried' relative to Churchill's comments are not so identified, but assumed.
ACTUAL OBERSERVATIONS
While it is noted that 'republics' are some sort of derivation, some 'different level' of real democracies, the intention was to 'protect the minority from the majority'.
Problem is that some so called democracies are in fact not protecting the majority from the minority; false democracies.
Case in point look at the Ontario provincial governmental system election. In the last provincial election, Dalton McGuinty's Liberal party won 75% of the seats with 37% of the vote. He actually gets 'dictatorship ability. Balance this with the fact that in runnning for the leadership, McGuinty ran 4th in the first two elections; they use run-offs here.
Just to bring to your attention, this reality, and hopefully someone might be able to ensure that 'this far removed level' of democracy, is still considered to be a 'democracy',...perhaps we need another label ?
Happy New Year....! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Opps...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Caesar Squitti, you seem too intelligent to write here. Perhaps you could improve this article, yet it wouldn't last long. There are fanatics who monitor this page, notably Special:Contributions/Ultramarine but others as well.
If you improve this article your improvements will be undone by teenagers and ideological fanatics. Ironically this article shows how a tiny minority of propagandists can subvert democracy. It also shows how the idea "democracy" itself has become another authoritarian ideology that tolerates no criticism. -- 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 09:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was a believing in the utopia of our system...educated in the political science of this system, and believed it up until a few years ago. It became apparent that the Prime Minister did as he or she liked, with no connection to 'the people'.
If it took me decades to realize this, I would suspect that most of the other younger writers will take some time to understand that this is not a democracy, not a real one. I know I was one of them.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the Canadian political system goes, it was created, in 1867, by the British, as Canada was part of the colonies of England. In fact one of the first Govenor Generals of Canada was the son of the Queen of England. The Canadian parliamentary system was a system to enshrine political control to the Monarchs of England, while still appeasing the 'free vote' system that most people falsely believe is a democracy.
Its like the new 'washerless faucets' they don't have washers, they use a 'grommet' which is another different name for 'washer'.
We have the word 'democracy' and a critical analysis will see that the "demon" in and of words that corrupted this concept...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Democracy for the Few" May I add the reference to the book “Democracy for the Few” by Michael Parenti because (1) it shows that America is not a Democracy like we’re taught, and (2) it proves that America assassinated Socialists behind the scenes to force all attempts at “social justice & equality” to fail (Chile, etc) which was done to force all nations into wage-slavery which is slavery; (3) it shows how America hates equality and justice for all people instead of just a few rich people; (4) it shows how the most welfare given is to corporations and the rich people, not the poorest who need the financial help; (5) it shows how the rich & corporations pay little or no taxes while the poorest people pay the most in taxes; (6) it shows the power of the media & how they help keep people in slavery for wages, (7) how mostly poor people are sent to prisons but their crimes are much smaller than crimes committed by the richest people who mostly get suspended sentences; & many other very important facts. I’d also like to add a ref to “The Rich and Super-Rich” by Ferdinand Lundberg which shows the same things. May I add them to this article in “references”? Thank you. 69.228.231.62 ( talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It becomes apparent that many 'topics'within Wikipedia, have behind them decades of research that is ' black or white' thinking, that is that 'it' is all good or all bad.
Everything, except God, if there is one, would be perfect. So why all this 'resistence' to a critical discussion of any topic.
Take for example water.
The foundation of life, yet if out of balance can create death.
If we are to take this topic and elaborate from it, all topics should have a positive and negative dimension to them; the key is to provide some type of analytical balanced presentation.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In 'discriminating' between 'different types' or 'levels' of precious stones, they are judged relative to a scale, ie diamonds have a hardness of 10 (?), garnet 7 -7.5, etc.etc..
So perhaps a 'scale of comparision' would be useful in evaluating 'the degree' of democracy. Ie direct democracy would be a 10, a pareliamentary system is a 1.
While they are all gemstones, or democracies, they may need more clarification...?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Three important factors about so called democracies.
1. The vote required to elect a person. Ie the Vatican has just implemented a 2/3 majority. Canada's system is first past the post which is 100 / number of candidates plus one. So with 4 running in the election, the number is 25% plus one.
2. The ability of every elected individual to represent 'the people' that elected them. In Canada, there is very little of this, especially in majority governemnts.
3. Recall procedure. If 'the people' don't like what the government representatives are doing, they can 'recall' them. Some systems have this, others don't. Canada does not.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article focuses far to much on specific governmental systems and the different processes and manifestations of voting and majority rule. In my opinion, there should be more written about the "political philosophy" aspect of democracy. This article gives the impression that elections and majority rule are all that make up a democracy. It only scratches the surface of other factors, such as individual freedoms, equality and the rule of law. Additionally, the collection of maps and charts having to do with freedom and democracy in the modern world should be given a more prominent spot. Currently, they are hidden away beside the completely irrelevant "Ancient origins" and "Middle Ages" parts of the "History" section. They do not even seem to be directly referenced in the article. LK ( t| c) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There has to be some forms of criticism of democracy as a general idea. To redirect to specific forms is an obvious POV cop-out, because there are obviously broad ideas that define forms of democracy as stated in the opening paragraphs of this article. 69.153.82.19 ( talk) 23:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of including these maps and images in this article? They serve as nothing more than subjective opinions about a subjective topic, by no means are they authoritative or scientific. This especially regards the freedom house, since it bases its rankings on a mix of criteria, not all directly related to democracy. In my opinion, subjective, opinionated reports such as these which have received significant criticism should only be used in their respective articles, as they take away from the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, the studies are still opinions. Why are we including opinions in an article about an ideology? That takes away from its neutrality, like I said. Though it's not like this article was ever very neutral to begin with, what with a lack of a criticism section and all.
It doesn't matter if God himself did the research, opinions or objective stances of any sort don't belong in articles about ideologies, save perhaps for appropriately specified sections. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Either convince me that they're not violating NPOV policies or they're gone.
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves
This article exists to present readers with facts. With these facts, they can determine how "democratic and free" any given nation is on their own. Presenting readers with a bunch of giant maps and charts based on someone else's analysis about who's more "free and democratic" is POV. Understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That supports what I said perfectly: Let the facts speak for themselves. This isn't an article about peoples opinions or analysis, thus the images do not belong, unless under a specific section regarding opinions and other such subjective, non-factual views. Do you know the difference between fact and opinion? It wouldn't seem to be the case.
The images in question are a representation of an opinion. This disputes the neutrality of the article and displays a biased point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it in the most simple terms I possibly can. This article is about the IDEOLOGY called democracy. This article discusses the IDEOLOGY of democracy. Maps and graphs ranking countries using criteria based on personal views that are not globally agreed upon contribute absolutely nothing to presenting readers with any facts regarding the ideology of democracy whatsoever. It does however serve as a biased view of organizations who are arguably pushing an agenda.
This is why they are not npov, and this is why they should be removed. If someone wants to find out the ranking of countries according to -insert organization here- they can simply go to said article, or click one of the see also links at the bottom of the page.
only presenting only those from one side.
Exactly. You're finally beginning to understand! Now because of the fact that there is no opposing (non-western) study that attempts to rate democracy, only including one side is considered bias.
An opposing point of view meaning non-western. All of these studies originate from the same country and hold the same values, hence why they're not opposing views. You said yourself: WP does not exclude views and opinions, only presenting only those from one side.
Claiming that American and the UK hold opposing views on democracy is laughable. Show me a report from China, Russia, Pakistan.. oh wait they don't exist. Anyways, we're getting into semantics here. You've lost the argument and I've made all my points quite clear. I'm done arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted said images. They contribute nothing to learning about democracy and present the reader with a biased, pre-set idea of what democracy is or should be. They do not present a neutral point of view, as opinions of any sort regarding an ideology cannot be neutral. I'm not going to sit here and argue 10 pages about something that's already been concluded, so if you can find a credible non-western "democracy chart" to add to this page, then go ahead and re-add them. Otherwise, no propaganda please. Lets let the readers decide on their own what qualifies a country to be a democratic. Sbw01f ( talk)
Fact of the matter is you're going to keep arguing no matter what is said and how many times the same thing is repeated. The argument is over. I'm just going to kindly ask you to not start an edit war and let it be. Also, there is no such thing as a Marxist-Leninist state. Sbw01f ( talk)
Adding a map of communist states solves nothing as it is not a measurement of anything. I assure you I am following policy. Sbw01f ( talk)
Adding a map of communist states is not presenting a "view". The notion of communist states believing that they're democracies is already implied in the blue map. I think you just need to come to terms that these studies on measurement of democracy do not belong here. Sbw01f ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (or only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic.
To repeat what's already been stated, it is irrelevant to the topic of democracy what one group or another rates various countries based on their own criteria. This does not present the reader with any relevant information regarding the topic of democracy. The images in question are not only POV, but they're off topic. Sbw01f ( talk)
Sorry but your argument doesn't hold. Attempted measurements of democracy presented as authoritative are not relevant to the philosophy/ideology itself and are therefore off topic. Doesn't matter how noteworthy or popular they are. At the very best, they might deserve brief mention somewhere specifically regarding attempted measurements of democracy. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So did you not read anything I just wrote? Peer reviewed or not, it's off topic. If anyone wants to see those amazing peer reviewed articles, they can go check them out quite easily. There are links to them in the see also section.
Sbw01f ( talk) 10:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an article about what democracy is. These charts do not present any useful information about what democracy is. All they do is put a pre-set idea in the readers mind. ie. Propaganda. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Gravity must be measured in order to be understood on a scientific level. Further, it can be accurately measured in a factual, indisputable manner. Democracy cannot. Your comparison makes no sense. "Rankings" are not relevant to the history, philosophy or understanding of democracy. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to like arguing a lot. Unfortunately, you're not making any clear points or valid arguments and my stance has not changed. You've lost this argument twice now, and continue to revert to semantics and ridiculously flawed strawman arguments. Please just accept the facts and move on. Judging by comments made by multiple other people here and in other discussion pages, you don't see very popular or honest regarding your editing habits, so maybe you should take a hint. I will argue no more. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Sbw01f ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow are you seriously? Selective memory or what? Just stop already. I cited Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic which you failed to refute, and will now again attempt to refute and predictably fail. The images are not going back up, keep propaganda where it belongs in its own article. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding the main point of my post again? What a surprise! My argument is not that it's propaganda, that's my opinion which has no say in whether or not the material is off topic. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbw01f, you now have three editors reverting your edits. If these maps are used in peer reviewed studies as Ultramarine suggests then the maps showing which countries can be considered democratic can be a useful addition to the article in my opinion. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbw01f complained that the use of these rankings is a POV-issues of this article. Whether or not they were published in peer-reviewed articles has nothing to do with this. Special cases aside, NPOV-checking isn't a part of the peer review process. Especially in fields such as political science (where the peer-review doesn't have the same importance as in natural science anyway) peer-reviewed journals are supposed to include opinionating and editorializing, hence POV. NPOV does, however, demand that controversial rankings such as Freedom House's aren't shown to unexpecting readers without proper discussion. All of the "rankings" present a decidedly Anglo-American viewpoint, all of them are largely focussed on the freedom of trade (or what is seen as such by the world's leading economies), a criterium that is far from universally accepted as a defining factor. Malc82 ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see this is heading for one more Talk:Democracy discussion that goes in circles. If you (as a regular at Talk:FH) honestly think that labeling FH a highly controversial source is my unsupported OR, I won’t even dignify that with references, you know them. If you don’t see a problem in that their rankings try/pretend to measure freedom (not democracy) objectively and that freedom (as vague as that term is) is not the same as democracy, so be it. Btw, when I finished my po-sci minor in 1807 (the first two numbers might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure about the second half), peer-review only looked for methodological errors and factual accuracy. Articles are included if they are deemed valuable to the scientific debate, not only if they present all sides of the argument. Malc82 ( talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the polity data series, I decided to make a map of it on the grounds that it differs quite a bit from the other two (aside from the obvious best/worst ranked). Seems like less of a western popularity contest to me. Not that I think its attempt to measure democracy is any less of a joke than the others, as the mere suggestion that any country is "perfect" and has no room for improvement is foolish, but it gives a different perspective and presents the implication that democracy can't be accurately measured, only ball parked. I also got rid of the communist map since it's already implied that those countries consider themselves democratic with the blue map. (also, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of those countries claiming that they're the only true democracies, though I could be wrong). Sbw01f ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism of democracy? Ultramarine has repeatedly deleted any criticism of democracy, on this and other pages. Someone please help to ban this censoring user. Please consider reverting any of Ultramarine's edits to unfairly remove material.
I will restore the criticisms of democracy section as soon as some admin or group of users agrees to help stop Ultramarine. How many years of bigoted edits will we allow? Where can we complain? How can we edit anything on this page if Ultramarine will only remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at User_talk:Solidusspriggan this Ultramarine has been pushing his POV for years! Why does Wikipedia ban users for repeated edit warring, POV pushing, tendencious editing, yet not Ultramarine? Is there a bias in the wikipedia administration? Who would support a ban on Ultramarine editing "criticisms of democracy" (changed to the POV "arguments for and against democracy")? Can't we use Democracy here? 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. This user is clearly pushing an agenda, and does not in any way respect NPOV. Just check all of the articles he edits and you'll see clear, blatant bias. 99.240.27.210 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Ultramarine is NuclearUmpf is Zer0faults is SixOfDiamonds is SevenOfDiamonds. It can't be a coincidence that NuclearUmpf and Ultramarine have the same editing style (such as multiple tiny edits in a short span), obsessively editing all day long, all night, for weeks, months, years; on similar topics. Isn't use of sockpuppets grounds for a ban? Same quotes, spiral architecture, ultramarine blue pictures. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:NuclearUmpf&oldid=89448426 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ultramarine&oldid=90337986
Don't argue with Ultramarine; argument becomes a futile circle. He's an expert wiki-lawyer (well practiced) who points to wiki-rules he cleverly evades. He seems to enjoy antagonizing other users; he has collected personal attacks as if they were trophies on his userpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ultramarine/Hall_of_Fame_Comments&oldid=132365223 Let's wish him well as a person, but stop the agenda-pushing.
Ultramarine's cycle of sophistry 1) say "cite sources" then delete a "non-peer reviewed" source 2) insert peer-reviewed articles from pseudo-academic propaganda mills 3) if someone removes the POV material say "no deleting sourced material" 4) when editors are fed up say "no personal attacks." Arguing in circles; endurance trumps even-mindedness. After hundreds of edits, "Assuming good faith" eventually becomes untenable.
Unfortunately Ultramarine likely has friends, perhaps admins, to call on. Years pass, and there are still no criticisms of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Democracy without criticism (internal or external) is not a Democracy!
Why no mention that New Zealand is considered the worlds first real modern democracy, because it was the first country that allowed all people including women to vote? Seems hard (or perhaps more egotistical) to consider only USA in the section discussion modern democracy 222.154.237.42 ( talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Democracy was actually founded in ancient Greece and not in ancient India as you have said. India may have used democracy in their country but the Greeks had the first idea of democracy.Could the creator of this article please change this error of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euge246 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
== CLARIFY DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC AND INTERRELATIONSHIP == -revision of original title with direct reference to content: 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Original title: ==MY OPINION ON DEMOCRACY ==
The government of the United States of America was never intended to be a democracy. At least that was true until the definition of democracy was changed to include the definition of a republic. In effect, the language was changed to blur the distinctions. This type of language change is called "newspeak" [3].
When I was a child, in a democracy, every citizen voted on every issue. The only government that I know of as a democracy was Ancient Athens. I consider it an experiment that failed because the individuals were not politically trained. A democracy requires that every individual be knowledgeable about every issue and aware of the consequences of every decision. Also, every voter should remember the fate of Athens.
The more I read about democracy in Wikipedia, the more I think that this perversion of the definition is deliberate and designed to eventually destroy the concept that people are capable of ruling themselves. James thirteen ( talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- response - : Limiting the definition of democracy to voting would be reductive. Voting may facilitate or stimulate democracy but it is only one means of doing so; and it is not the case that voting on every issue maximizes the democratic potential of citizens. Drawing on the Dutch word for "vote" which is "stem," I take "voting" to also mean "voicing." Voicing opinions goes beyond voting in that voting is more passive and waits for the issue to be framed in a yes/no format. Voicing opinion, on the other hand, means actively contributing to a public discussion. For democracy to be working, it may not be as important that every citizen participates in every discussion as it is that every discussion continues in such a way that people continue to get the opportunity to intervene in the business of the republic, even if they only enter into the discussion at a later point.
Democracy is basically a free-market of ideas - so one of the criteria for a free market to be free is that firms/people can enter into the market, or exit it, freely. Theoretically, as long as ideas and opinions are being exchanged openly and publicly, discussions that you exit will surface on your agenda again later as they become news-making events. Counting majority votes on issues may be one means of solving a highly contested issue to arrive at a decision for action, but no one should think that it is somehow democratic to close the discussion because "the majority has ruled." Ultimately, the discussion will continue until a time when everyone is convinced - which is in all likelihood NEVER EVER going to happen. So democracy is really just a constantly evolving ideological discussion (or rather multiple, interacting discussions).
Decisions and actions must be taken in order to move things along, but people have to learn to make decisions and take actions in a spirit of tentative certainty, on the basis of faith that they are doing the best they can in the moment in which they felt the necessity to act. Coalition action, or multilateral decision-making, are in a sense democratic, because they involve ideological negotiation and compromise. However, they are also anti-democratic, or at least anti-republican, because one of the conditions for building a coalition or consulting others to act multilaterally is suppressing or censoring the ability to act individually in good faith. If, during coalition negotiations, an individual believes in good faith that action is necessary prior to having reached a consensus decision, they must act on their sense of need because failing to do so would, in their estimation, result in preventable damage. They may be proven to have been wrong in retrospect, after the fact, but to act independently in good faith is a risk that is outweighed by the consequences of failure to act, when lack of action allows preventable consequences to take place. This is not to say that individuals may avoid democratic discussion altogether (which is technically impossible anyway since to act independently still requires that you have received information). It just means that the use of "democracy" to tie the hands of individuals from acting independently of a coalition has anti-democratic consequences. A coalition works counter to democracy in constraining the freedom of individuals to act independently of the coalition, even when it is organized as a means of incorporating more opinions into decision-making.
The conflict between coalition democracy and autocratic decision-making is not really an issue. The real issue this question obscures has to do with the status or role of individual actions and decisions within democracy. Coalition need not have a repressive effect if individuals are not compelled to subordinate themselves to the authority structures developed and recognized through the coalition process. Autocratic decision need not deny open democratic discourse if the individual acting does so in the spirit of taking initiative where necessary instead of just acting out of self-interest or attempting to achieve dominance within the coalition for personal gain. Problematically, this depends on the intentions of the individual, and the spirit in which s/he acts, which are vague and subjective. Again, however, it is unconscionable to place the rules of coalition-discipline above the ethics of acting to prevent negative consequences, if those consequences are deemed to outweigh the consequences of ignoring authority or coalition-protocols at a particular moment. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
James thirteen, this talkpage is not a message board. It's for discussing the article Democracy. Please don't use Wikipedia talkpages as your soapboxes. Quoting Wikipedia:Talk page:
"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Bishonen | talk 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
This article is really fucking messy. It's just a hotch-pot of ideas stuck together. Read the first sentence. Rule by the ruled? It's so wishy-washy and indistinct. Tells you very little. And skimming over it: the stuff about the american frontier and democracy is a little dubious. I can understand how frontier life contributed to egalitarianism, which is important for democracy, but a direct link is not as clear. And definately the stuff above about NZ extending suffrage to women first is important. It's just: it seems the article needs to be alot clearer than it is. Needs to be structured and the opening paragraphs need to be trimmed down A LOT. ( 58.111.107.59 ( talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
It is true that some parts of Ancient Greece had a type of pseudo-democracy, as the head was elected, and deicions taken by all adult male citizens in big meetings. But I would like to claim that firstly, this is not in any ay unique to Greece. The scandinavian cultures during iron-age had the same structures (although during the viking age the elections of kings in Denmark and Norway became a formality). Hence, we could equally claim that democracy has it's origins in ancient Sweden. :) But secondly, that would also be wrong, because nothing of these democracies remain.
The origin of democracy is rather Western Europe and United States. In particular it started with Magna Carta, and then slowly grew, until the ideas of democracy appeared among western thinkers, with United States as it's first (also flawed) implementation.
The origins in Greece are nothing more than a 19th century myth when ancient greece was cool. :) I propose that claim it removed. -- Regebro ( talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a few quick points to adress the first post. There are distinct reasons why Athenian democracy from antiquity is considered so important when talking about the origins of modern democracy. Classical texts were massively popular, especially in renaissance Europe. Plato's Republic is still considered very important reading for modern politics students. It is not just that the Athenians (and others following their example) had an ad hoc system of voting on everything, it's that they wrote extensive documents about it that were VERY popular for centuries (basically half of the writing that wasn't the Bible). It was the Athenian literature on democracy that was so important, and helped spur people forward when they started to question their monarchy. The magna carta was just the king asserting his property rights to the pope. Important: yes, but it was largely incidental to the effort to make a democracy. Athens was a major driver of the ideological thrust for democracy. The Romans less so: in fact their part should be toned down a little. They did develop a republic, but to consider them democratic is to completely misread the sources (plebs voting is not the same as representative democracy whatsoever). ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 04:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
First of all, encyclopedia Brittanica is not a good source for wikipedia. Surely it is clear that there are dangers with an encyclopedia referencing an encyclopedia. And you can't reference a WHOLE BOOK when citing a source for a specific piece of evidence. Point out a page number so other people can see what you are pointing to, otherwise the cite is completely irrelevant. As it stands, there is absolutely no credible source for the information in the paragraph. HOWEVER, the paragraph is not necessarily wrong either. But it is slightly misleading and doesn't capture how modern democracies really fail (they instead degenerate into a patron/client relationship where the president gives money, political benefits and postions of power to his clients in return for their support. For examples of this see such third-world countries as Zimbabwe and Italy). The real point is that this paragraph belongs in the body of the article as the introduction is too large as it stands. There is room for this in the article, and an expansion of it, but not in the first paragrapg ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
Given an appropriate association—a city, for example—who among its members should enjoy full citizenship? Which persons, in other words, should constitute the demos? Is every member of the association entitled to participate in governing it? Assuming that children should not be allowed to participate (as most adults would agree), should the demos include all adults? If it includes only a subset of the adult population, how small can the subset be before the association ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos)?
No doubt there will be critics of democracy for as long as democratic governments exist. The extent of their success in winning adherents and promoting the creation of nondemocratic regimes will depend on how well democratic governments meet the new challenges and crises that are all but certain to occur.
The gravest dangers of any particular regime are always noted by its partisans because those dangers are inherent in the unchecked supremacy of the regime's own favorite and dominant moral spirit -- and because as a consequence those who prescribe the needed antidotes will almost inevitably be suspected of being "anti-regime". (Aristotle Politics)
In modern democracy, the courageously loyal political scientist will, imitating Tocqueville, limn the dangers of democracy by reminding of aristocracy's and monarchy's contrasting moral and spiritual and civic strengths. He will not allowed to be forgotten that democracy is meant to be an aristocracy which has broadened into universal aristocracy; that liberal education is the ladder by which we try to ascend from mass democracy to democracy as original meant.
... to the dangers of inherent by the unchecked advance of of the treasured moral principles and individual liberty and popular sovereignty...
In the absence of check and balances, a branch is likely to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.
One of the most important contributions to democratic practice has been the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure that political power is dispersed and decentralized. It is a system founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed and when it is held as close to the people as possible.
Proponents of separation of powers believe that it protects democracy and forestalls tyranny.
Without an elaborate constitutional system of check and balances and a respect for the rule of law, it is all too easy for representative democracy to deteriorate into a "tyranny of the majority".
The check and balance system renders us safe from the danger of anarchy, for though ultimate control is vested in the people, sufficient powers are entrusted to the governmental mechanism to protect it against popular passion. the system likewise protect us against despotism.
The great dilemma of America's constitutional democracy was and still is how to craft a system with sufficient power to fulfill its functions, but not so much to endanger individual liberty. As a response to this dilemma the constitution placed limits on national governmental power such as checks and balances and the federal division between the state and the national governments.
Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.
so how would they then be able to stop this if this is what the people wants? Answer: They can't.
In a democracy, only the people can keep the democracy democratic.
I have re-composed the disputed sentence and place it back with the new sources (no britannica, no chomsky) that clearly state the content of the sentence. If it still is poorly written then please improve my English. Delete, only if you have reliable sources (also post them here) that clearly state the opposite. Enjoy Life! A.Cython ( talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, 'checks and balances' is a cliche that is overused in high school textbooks and is problematic becuase it is undefined.
The separation of powers is important, as are many other things. And note that the separation of state and federal powers is NOT necessary for a democracy (as one of your sources claims), and is rather a UScentric view.
They require further discussion that is not appropriate for the introduction (which brings me to my main point: the introduction is over cluttered and the bulk of what is in their needs to be brought down into the body of the article under specific headings). My other problem is that you seem to be half stuck in antiquity. Tell me about a democracy that has "sunk" into an oligarhcy since 300 BC. Modern countries are not city states and their governments are far more complex, that to call one an oligarchy in any context is to over simplify the issue. If you're going to maintain the use of the word 'oligarchy' you're going to have to provide a definition of the term that applies to real world failures of democracies. What really needs to be adressed in this case is what democracies actually become when they fail.
I would like to point out here that I never stated the paragraph should be outright deleted, but rather that it is misleading, (was) badly sourced (and arguably, the sources do not infer exactly what the paragraph is sayin), and that it doesn't fit in the introduction (you don't have the introduction of the dictatorship article mentioning that, without careful checks and balances, dictatorships will fail and become democracies).
**Majority Rule is not a democratic element and it needs to be checked and balanced otherwise it turns into tyranny of the majority
**Elections is also not a democratic element since by having representatives you remove from the many the participation from the policy making. Again, certain checks and balances are needed to ensure that the elections are done in a democratic fashion, i.e. all citizens can became representatives and the weight of vote is equal to everybody etc etc
The check and balance system renders us safe from the danger of anarchy, for though ultimate control is vested in the people, sufficient powers are entrusted to the governmental mechanism to protect it against popular passion. the system likewise protect us against despotism.
Even if we accept the doubtful statement that without "checks and balances" a branch can accumulate power but without "checks and balances" it can't, how would the centralisation of power into one branch lead to a complete lack of central power?
Yes these things are democratic elements. They do not, by themselves, guarantee democracy.
The elections must be fair and open, the majority must be a real majority, not a majority of the minority, etc.
That is, in short, to be a democracy in practice, the democracy must be a so called Liberal democracy.
But claiming that this is the only real democracy is a POV, which is why the article does not claim that.
I think I was correct in you have an unstated goal, namely getting in some sort of opinion on what "real" democracies are.
I only add this for the people not get confused.
It is good for the people to know the definitions. A.Cython ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.
Although this is POV and I was sure it will be deleted soon, I just realized it's so vaguely formulated that it may actually be able to stay. Crackpots who think countries like Cuba, China, Iran or Singapore is a demoray will probably interpret the whole paragraph as support for this, with the military dictatorships and censorship being the "checks and balances". ;) I could be wrong, of course, and then it will get deleted as soon as a commie sees the sentence....
However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.
Of the three references given, only one is actually available online, and it is a book from 1922 claiming absurdly that these checks and balances protect us from "Anarchy". A book written in 1922 can't really be expected to understand democracy either, as the world at that time had had only marginal experience of it. I still think this sentence should go away, or be changes to "then a branch of the system of rule is in theory able to accumulate power", as it, as far as I am aware, never has happened.
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of representative democracy
Well, this artice is about democracy, not representative democracy. That needs to be changed, or moved to the correct article. -- Regebro ( talk) 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I am wondering if anyone can direct me to any material about why is democracy preferred (better than) autocratic society? Here, I do not mean a society like Zimbabwe or Myanmar, but rather a developed, rich, advanced society (like America) having a leader (non-elected) that would care about the people and about long-term development and well-fare of the citizens (let's suppose that the leader would be very rich, so that he/she would not have any motives to shun long-term goals in favor of short-term, personal gain). Any ideas and sources?
Tom 193.2.86.3 ( talk) 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why benevolent dictators are a bad idea you can surely read about in almost any book about politics? It doesnt matter if the country is rich or not. IN fact Zimbabwe was relatively rich and developed until Mugabe destroyed it. :/ If you want hard facts and detailed arguments, R.J. Rummels web page on how democracies are more peacful and tend not to kill people is good http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ and especially http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DEMOC.HTM -- Regebro ( talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the previous incarnations of this page, and going all the way back to 2004 there's been alot of interest in this article but it's been a bit of a blob: its changed shape alot but the quality hasn't gotten any better. I even went over to French wikipedia and used google translate on it, and even though it's not great either, the format is a little nicer. The ugliest part of this article is the "Forms of Democracy", because it is a list. We should open with "Political Theory" and describe democracy, pulling some stuff down from the intro into it and leaving the introduction a lot lighter than it is. Here we could include "types" but have it in paragraph format. For example: "broadly speaking, there are two types of democracies, direct and representative." Then talk about direct, and then talk about representative. Include discussions for democracy and those against (off the top of my head, it's good because it tends to give equal rights, it's bad because it can degenerate into a popularity contest). Overall netting a NPOV. Then go into the history, starting with antiquity and then, below it, mentioning societies that indepently came up with a democracy like the athenians. Then go into political history, eg Magna Carta, and social history, eg the enlightenment, that together helped democracy. Then talk about the UNited States, France, England, etc etc. "Quotes" "List" and "notes" can most likely stay. For an example of a featured politics article that we can base our format on (note format, not content), have a look at Libertarianism. ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 07:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
I think if Human society wants to become a better civilization, then it begins with a good form of Democracy & Socialism. The education they teach at schools is not at all morality focussed, but public morality is just as important as democracy.
Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to raise objection to the otheruses link to Democratic Party as it seems too party-oriented for top line of the article, which I think should aim to be party-neutral. I realize that Democratic redirects to this article and understand the double meaning of Democratic due to the party system, however, I believe that ambiguity should be addressed on a disambig page on Democratic instead of redirecting here, similar to the approach of the Democrat disambig. Proposing to create disambig on Democratic and remove otheruses link to Democratic Party from this article. Thoughts? - ChrisRBennett ( talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is the section on criticism of democracy? IIRC I saw it some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.171.155 ( talk) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
When things don't work as they should work, enlightenment/information must be allowed without being labelled an enemy of democracy. By the way, have a look here, how things can appear in a wrong light, [6], I added Mark Crispin Miller. The deletionwork seems as if I had added the unsigned words before, too.
I wanted to take exception to the lines in the introductory section of this page that say: "The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties." In my opinion this is innaccurate. The United States was considered to be a democracy even when it limited the right to vote to white, property-owning males. It did not concede benefits to the African American slaves who lived in the US (the famous Dred Scott case illustrates this), nor did it grant suffrage to everyone until less than 100 years ago. And yet, since the US Constitution had been accepted as law, the US was considered to be a democratic form of government. Therefore, I would strongly urge that the wording in this introduction be changed - democracies do not necessarily insure that all members have equal access to power, nor that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. This statement is absolutely incorrect and should be ommitted or changed. Saukkomies 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes sets the earliest democracies in Sumeria, and references an article by Thorkild Jacobsen. I've now read that article, and there is some huge problems with it. Basically he bases the statement of democracy on city assemblies which he claims where the highest instance of power in the cities, and open for all male citizens. However, his claim that they were the highest power is based on the behavior of the gods in later texts. That is wonky to say the least. And no, that's not original research, you can find the same view here: [7]
His claim that the assembly was open for all citizens is even more shaky. It's based on the fact that the word for assembly, puhrum, is used interchangeable with the word for city, âlum. This he claims must mean that all citizens are a part of the assembly, which is an obvious non-sequitur.
I have no problem believing that ancient sumeria had a democracy of greek type. After all, it existed in other places, like Scandinavia. But there seems to be no actual proof for it. There are no texts that says that all citizen is a part of the assembly, that is pure speculation from Jacobsens side. I think it might we worth mentioning that there are hints on earlier democracies, but we need to change the text back that claims that Mesopotamia had the earliest democracies, because there are no proof for this. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We have no indication that there was a developmental connection between the Greek democracy and a hypothetical precursor, or that any record of earlier democracy survived to influence later people and cultures, as that of Greece. M. I. Finley has asserted that "What ever the facts may be [about democracies in early Mesopotamia], their impact on history, on later societies, was null. The Greeks and only the Greeks discovered democracy in that sense precisely as Christopher Columbus, not some Viking seaman discovered America."
Seems like a lot of people are complaining about a lack of one, so I wrote up an initial draft. -- LightSpectra ( talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The word "democracy" is of Greek origin and historically referred to the Athenian form of government. But Athens gets just a paragraph in this article and is emphasized only slightly more Iroquois or Bushman. Uthman was chosen caliph after consultation among six people. I don't see it how this can be considered an example of democracy. Venice was an aristocracy with a Council of Ten elected by wealthy merchants.
Something should be said about the historical use of the word. Democracy acquired a bad reputation because Thucydides blamed it for Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Before the French Revolution, "democracy" was almost always a negative word and implied mob rule. The founding fathers emphasized that the U.S. Constitution created a republic, not a democracy.
I think the paragraph on the Roman Republic needs a rewrite. That Roman senators were generally nobles didn't make Rome any less democratic -- think of all the U.S. congressman who are lawyers. Senators were normally former elected officials, i.e. chosen more or less democratically. To be a noble in Rome that meant you were descended from a consul (head of state). In ancient times, ancestry was recognized as a legitimate qualification for office, somewhat like having an Ivy League degree nowadays. Since they were subject to lex Claudia, nobles were thought less likely to have conflicts of interest. Kauffner ( talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While Republican Rome did have a popular assembly, it was - unlike in Classical Athens - the Senate, dominated throughout its existance by the rich aristocratic families, where crucial political decisions were taken. It is this feature which decisively defines the Roman Republic as an oligarchy rather than a democracy.
Anyway, the part of the problem is what exactly is "democracy". If we define it as a system of rule that favors the many (who are the poor) and we are 100% strict with this definition then there was only society in the history to achieve this. If we are less strict there are more but if you are even less strict then you may end up including Rome and Sparta as democracies as well, thus rewriting the history books. Thankfully, WP is about what the academic books write not what we want. Now, was for example Iroquois a democracy? Well I do know. There are some books around but I am not convinced and at the moment there is an academic war on this issue. So if you have some proposals backed by sources feel free to edit. A.Cython ( talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is also (from my perspective) in the agreement with the scientific community. It might worth checking the following book if you want, "History of democracy, the unfinished journey, 508 BC to AD 1993" by John Dunn (who is one of top scholars on the field). A.Cython ( talk) 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It reads more like definitions taught by (and to a certain extent imposed by) the Anglo-American world, especially the United States, rather than a historical and world-wide perspective. It asserts a certain presumed correct form of democracy, rather than defining the concept. This is not to say this presumed correct form isn't good and proper and the way for all right-thinking people (also not to say that it is), but they are assertions of POV.
This opening "neutral" and "objective" comment is in fact controversial: "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system." in fact, this is more likely to reference to (although is again confusingly not synonymous with) a republic. Then what follows is a de facto attack on direct democracy.
The following paragraph is based on assertions about a certain view of democracy, after a passing mention of "several varieties": "There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally[14]. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15]"
Yes, this particular paragraph has citations, but one could, say, write a structurally equivalent paragraph extolling Soviet democracy, and cite any number of Marxist-Leninist theorists and thinkers at Soviet universities, and it wouldn't even necessarily be intellectually empty, but few I think would accept it as definitive and NPOV.
And I have no idea why Fareed Zakaria has been elevated to an intellectual status where his questionable concept of "illiberal democracy" is seen as important enough to anchor the first paragraph; at least, it should be recognized that "illiberal democracy" and direct democracy are not synonyms.
If I have time I'll prune and I hope do some sum-up that references the more complete survey of democracy towards the end of the article. 67.49.168.151 ( talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)I
I'm not sure why my signature didn't show, I had signed in. Doprendek ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The current line suggests power or the system is run by people...well as opposed to what ?, machines ?
Most definitions I have seen is that 'the people' (as in a majority) are the holders of power.
Any thoughts ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey" is not independent but sponsored by the US gouvernment and the survey is strongly partial. It can not serve as an independent index. -- Englishazadipedia ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Democracy always doesn't work for the good of the world. For example American voters selected Bush junior, he invaded Iraq, followed is the Iraqi civil war and lot of civilians were killed (and are being killed now). Wrongly assuming Bush has done the right thing, Americans selected Bush again.
Is this means one man's (Americans) Democracy is another man's death (Iraqi) ? Or is Democracy in a Superpower doesn't always help a person from a different country ?
If a democratic government is re-elected on the basis that it had won a war, what kind of democracy is that ?
Will that prompt for a government to initiate a unjustfiable war (to win the election) in which thousands of people from a different country can be killed ? (or even thousand of people from the same country of different ethnic background can be killed).
Should there be a comment added on this subject in this article about it ? - Iross1000 ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The single citation offered for the inclusion of the "republics of ancient India," in the "Ancient origins" section, is an unpublished paper by an associate professor, who admits he cannot read the primary sources. How can this citation be considered worthy scholarship?
The notion of the Vedic "republics" is not uncontroversial; even a cursory search using JSTOR, produces multiple articles that highlight the difficulties presented by the source texts. The primary sources cited as evidence for the existence and constitution of the "republics," are based on Vedic canonical texts. This Vedic evidence is considered to be "scant" and of "uncertain significance." Where political assemblies are mentioned, the information provided is considered "insufficient" to state anything "precise about their nature." While, it is left that the forms, sabhci and samiti, with their construed political connotations, might be imagined as "semi-republican" assemblages, there is hardly enough evidence to characterize the polities as full fledged republics.
all quotes from: T. Burrow. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 34, No. 2. (1971), pp. 416-417.
another source: N. K. Wagle. The American Historical Review, Vol. 77, No. 4. (Oct., 1972), pp. 1170-1171. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonof76 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be several places where Democracy and Republic are compared in a historical context, often referring to how the founding fathers used democracy to mean "direct democracy" and republic to mean "representative democracy". There is a section is Republicanism, there is a section in Democracy, and there is some information scattered in Republic and in several orther articles and footnotes. I think these should all be merged in the section under Democracy entitled " Democracy and Republic" as it currently has the most useful and referenced information. Perhaps, a new article can be created altogether that just focuses on the history definitions of these words. JavidJamae —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What does the phrase "free and fair elections" (used in the "liberal democracy" subsection) mean? I think that the ambiguous qualifiers "free" and "fair" should be replaced with something more specific, such as "secret ballot", "universal suffrage", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drono ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
The citation actually says "In General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of direct democracy designed to replace representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions. Unless we are to assume that Proudhon is simply self-contradictory, his criticisms of a strictly political form of direct democracy cannot have been meant to apply to the economic or industrial form of democracy which he himself had been advocating for a number of years. But upon what basis can Proudhon distinguish the two?"
If Proudhon "rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy" why does our article say "He 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", especially since the refernce points out that he opposed unanimous democracy.
Do we need Proudhon at all? His claims are confusing to me and do not add to this article. What does he teach us about democracy? Raggz 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is confusing. Proudhon's ideas are the reason? They are well-known to be contradictory. How can we make this section better? Raggz 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Having read Proudhon's wiki entry, it sounds like he opposed any form of government control on individuals, whether they identified with a majority or minority. It does sound like he was for democratic discourse among free people. He was just against binding anyone by anyone else's decisions, it sounds like. He is an interesting thinker and worth including in a study of democracy, whether you like him or not, agree or disagree with some or all of his views. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
We have in our article "Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favor of non-majoritarian consensus". Isn't a non-majoritarian consensus a synonym for minority rule and a majoritarian consensus a synonym for majority rule? Raggz 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We have attempted to describe all of the List of types of democracy in this article. Please review this page, because I propose (1) moving almost all discussion on forms of democracy to that page and (2) referencing this other article in our opening paragraph. This is a major conceptual revision, but the article needs serious streamlining. Discussion? Raggz 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Democracy as a system based on the political vote has little meaning if there is not also clean water, education, housing etc and, in particular, some form of secure income for all individuals. Binary economics deepens political democracy by addressing the key underlying economics issue of ensuring that a market economy works for everybody in an effective, efficient and just way."
This section is OR, so will soon be deleted if not then supported. Also it should also appear first within the list of types of democracies before it appears within this article. An example of an actual binary democracy would be necessary for the Reader to put it into context. Alternatively, a statement that it is an untested theory AND references suggesting that it has relevance would be necessary. Raggz 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"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." Presently this entry is unsupported and constitutes OR. I have no problem with keeping it when it is brought up to Policy standards (see binary democracy comments which may apply here as well). However, I won't just delete it but will wait for this section to develop and be supported. Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"Minoritarianism is a political philosophy where various minorities are given some degree of minority rule." This is an important addition that will help the Reader. Can you link it to other articles and ofer one solid citation? Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I insist that editors use 'most reliable' sources and give attribution of their sources with their edits to this article. Please familiarize yourself with, and follow, the guidelines of WP:V and WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Explaining my most recent revert: I don't see your attribution using 'most reliable' sources. Per WP:ATT, most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. Websites do not qualify as 'most reliable' sources. Use books and journals, published by universities to be safe. Sorry, to maintain quality in this article, we must be careful about the quality of the sourcing. SaltyBoatr 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The Anti-Democratic Thought article is poorly constructed. It lacks substance, it reads like an essay, and there are no sources cited; we need deep, intelligent writing for such a complex faculty of political philosophy. Until we can approach that, I say we move the article into the Criticisms section of this article and work from there. VolatileChemical 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very pleased with how far this article has come in the past four months. Good work everyone. Raggz 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The very concept of a codified national constitution was revolutionary in the history of political systems. The first such constitution was the Constitution of the United States of America, written in 1787, which began to function in 1789. The second was the Constitution adopted by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on May 3, 1791. These two charters of government form an important milestone in the history of democracy. Poland and the United States, though distant geographically, showed some notable similarities in their approaches to the design of political systems.[1] By contrast to the great absolute monarchies, both countries were remarkably democratic. The kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected, and the Commonwealth's parliament (the Sejm) possessed extensive legislative authority. Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland afforded political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners.
Poland was only listed among "non democratic regimes" in between the World Wars. Which was very, very stupid - unless you count the modern Russia as the "non-democratic regime", as it's similarily a strongman-led parliamentary republic with two chambers (oh wait, you mostly don't).
Fix it up people. -- HanzoHattori 08:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Democrasy is about being free and chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.5 ( talk) 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with having this phrase in the intro. Yes it is relatively vague but that's the whole point - the article then goes on to set out various "types" of democracy in more detail. I don't understand in what way that isn't clear. Consent can derive via elections, indirect representation, via direct participation, via referendums etc, as the article makes sets out further down. To say democracy is just about elections is pretty simplistic, especially as the definitive statement in the intro (I'll leave aside the point that in my view, the whole intro is incorrectly written as if the word refers merely to a form of government). -- Nickhh 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Phrases like "consent of the governed", "participation in government" and "free and fair elections" are just slogans and have no specific meaning. What does any of those things mean? How do you know that the people "consent" to be governed? How do the people "participate in government"? What makes elections "free" or "fair"? If you can supply clear interpretations of those phrases, write them out. As they stand, they mean nothing.
By the way, what makes your (Nickhh's) choice of definition, better than mine (Drono's)? Spare me the lecture. -- Drono 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For someone who can't be bothered to go into a revert war, you are very busy reverting, without any clear reason. You admit that your definition is vague - why then do you bother to insert it? Either come up with something useful or let it go. If you don't know what "consent of the governed" means, why is it there? Are you in the habit of writing things that don't have a clear meaning? What part of the article explains the concept of consent?
"Competitive" means that the elections are a competition for votes: two or more independent candidates or parties are trying to convince the voters to vote for them. One can always argue about details of definitions, but "fair and free" is so vague that it is useless. Are elections in the U.S., for example, free and fair? What about elections in Russia? The term is used in a partisan manner to legitimize certain elections and de-legitimize others.-- Drono 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First, I think that your definition of "free and fair" goes some way toward making things specific enough to be worth writing. Saying that anyone can go onto the ballot is a good condition - the only problem with it is that there is no country in which anyone can just go onto the ballot. If there was such a country, you could expect ballots with thousands of candidates. For everyone to then have a "fair chance" of winning, you would have to have all those thousands of candidates and their political ideas be recognizable to the public. This not only doesn't happen, but is clearly impossible.
My point is that there is a wide gulf between democratic ideology (which is really not about elections at all) and "democratic" practice (which in reality is no more than competitive elections). You can define either the ideology or the practice or both, but do not mix the two up.
BTW, you say: "I'm bored of idiots who bully their own irrational POV into Wikipedia pages." Note the personal tone of your comments and compare them to mine. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be you who is the "idiotic, irrational bully"? -- Drono 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, that phrase was OTT and came out of my frustration, as much with other editors as with you. However that in turn came from the fact that you were reverting without explaining why - and then when you did eventually respond on the talk page, initially accused me of "lecturing" you and then suggested I put phrases into Wikipedia that I didn't understand. I took both of those as being pretty personal. Anyway, that aside we simply disagree - I think the article SHOULD describe both theory and practice as long as it does so clearly and distinctly (which to be honest it doesn't, either in the long-standing version I was trying to maintain, or with the newer phrasing you introduced). In addition I would argue that there are in fact plenty of examples of democratic practice that do not depend on elections, for example referenda, or direct democracy at a local level. -- Nickhh 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for apologizing - accepted.
I support handling both theory and practice (separately). I think that the best way to define democracy as an idea or theoretical concept is as a government where citizens are political equals (that is, they all have the same amount of influence on public policy). In this I rely on Robert A. Dahl, one of the most well-known modern theorists of democracy. See, for example, his book "On Political Equality".
As for practice, I think that in reality it is (at the state level, and at any level beyond very small groups) mostly about competitive elections, but you are right to point out that some secondary procedures do exist. -- Drono 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason you cannot separate the theory and practice of democracy is that to do so you would have to elevate one form of democracy over another. This discussion of democracy is itself democratic. To be specific it is democratic theorizing of democratic theory. If you try to censor the discussion and theorizing process of democracy, you would be taking an authoritarian (i.e. anti-democratic) approach to theoretical practice. Ultimately, you have to recognize that democracy is an idea(l) and that in practice, realities always fall short of ideals. However, the moment you start modifying the ideal to reflect the reality, you lose the ideal itself. As such you also end up losing the reality that practices and ideals co-exist and mutually influence each other's discourse. Your best bet is to continue to pursue a theoretical discourse of democracy (doing so democratically) and, at the same time, critically explore practical applications of the theory - highlighting examples of how you see the practice falling short of the ideal. It is also legitimate to note that some of the ideals, or at least the language expressing them, may fall short of adequately describing anything (e.g. "free and fair" elections, etc. However, the best approach to these criticisms is to acknowledge their value and attempt to cultivate a discourse that seeks to flesh them out into meaningfulness instead of wielding destructive critiques like "self-contradicting." If you see something as "self-contradicting," have the decency to enlighten others about the specifics instead of just throwing out the critique like spitting out something tasteless or flushing a toilet. Negative critique is legitimate if it's meant in good faith, but it has to be positively supported or at least supportable upon questioning. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear such statements often form right wing extremists and here they are on the introductory material:
"Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority"."
First of all, representative democracy is not opposing majority rule. In fact, it is based on it, but it's not direct democracy. If it wasn't based on it, representative democracy could just drop 'democracy' and be good ol' "representative" totalitarianism. The d**n word "democracy" is used in the phrase 'representative democracy' for heaven's sake, it's obvious representative democracy is democratic.
Second, using the very phrase "the tyranny of the majority" should be obvious why there's a problem and I wonder why I even have to mention it. It's statements such as this that are constantly, repeatedly heard from "wonderful" leaders of totalitarian regimes. If you want it explained more, history has shown that gradually civilizations move from 'kings' to democracy in advanced states of their existence. First instinctive animal rule of the toughest animal/homo sapiens, then reason kicks in for more "humane" states of politics. It is obvious the majority is never 100% right. But it is also obvious it's the best there is when all the alternatives require totalitarianism to a smaller or larger extend. -- Leladax 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I support democracy over other systems, but I think your reading too much into the statement above, its simply expressing mpore than one view on representative democracy, whereas you seem to wish for the only view to be that representative democracy is always good. As I said I support democracy, but I culd make a case against it, and it isnt neccessarily the evolution of politics, it is simply the line that has been taken increasingly in the 20th centuary after the defeat of facism, and is still far from being accepted by all (only westerners really) as a perfect form of government. Democracies have often proven to be weak, and whether you may like it or not dictatorship and oligarchy have made many progressive changes in this world of ours. (we woudlnt be speaking this language if it hadnt). The reason democracy is mainly supported now in the West is not because it 'evolved' but because living standards are high and we wish to change little in our countries (compartively with poorer ones), therefore we support demoracy because we wish to keep ourselves balanced in the place we are in. Others (with some evidence to support them) view democracies as weak, as many are, and democracy often means rule by the majority, which in turn means that if a selfish or uneducated populace turns out to vote at elections, then the country could be in seriosu problems. If democacy is so perfect and the natural evolution, then there would not have been such a regression in the 20th centuary, and Weimer Germany (the most liberal democracy and arguably the most democratic country in the World of the time) would not have given way to dictatorship.
Also America is no more a candidate for being the first demofcacry than any other country listed, and I dont know why it is refered to as such. Other countries had popular voting, although exluding wwomen, just as the Americans, so I dont know why it is classed as the first liberal democracy, it is not, as seen by the list presented. I get irritated when I see patriotic American jargen plastered over wikipedia. Rob.G.P.A 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A point I would also like to make is true democacy is shaky, and most countries today dont achieve absolute democracy or even close to it. In the UK (where I am from) the idea of democracy is obviously uninspiring (therefore not an 'evolution'). Only 40% of people turn out to elections, which creates a 40% minority, of that 40% minority (usually better-off middle and buisness class) the party with the most votes gets in, it is not neccessary to have a majority of that 40% minority (your still following :)?). So in most elections in reality you could have a party representing 10-15% of the population.
That party is solely elected by unproportional representation (i.e. the number of MP's elected to constituencies), and the people have basically no say in government policy after that point, with no referendums or plebicites, and no election of the leader of that party (the Prime minister) who has more power over the way the country is run compartievly than the president of the USA has over how the USA is run.
SO basically in the UK we only live in a nominal democracy, and it does not suite everyone. In some senses a popular supported dicatorship, like Hitler's (who had the highest vote at the time) is actually more democratic than the multi party system we have today. But I still am going to throw in my chips with democracy, for all the good it does me -_-. Rob.G.P.A 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think much bias towards democracies is shown above in addition to general falsehoods about its supposed 'advanced' state. Tyranny of the majority is very real as all democracies, whether 'limited' by parchment constitutions or not, eliminate volunteerism in the minority. -- Thorsmitersaw 9 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I found the criticisms section rather lacking. Objections to demcoracy from many historical points of view such as Jefferson, Bastiat, Calhoun, Rothbard would be an excellent addition. A brief mention of democracies failures and criticisms found within "Democracy: the god that failed" by Hans Herman Hoppe, a leading market anarchist and economist who studied under Rothbard would be a excellent reference or mention to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism is of course subjective. Going back into the history has us looking back to a time when issues such as lobby, media and immunity were unheard of compaired to the current model. This section therefore comes down to what is a fair description of the problems. Finn is a world authourity given his work in equitable obligations, fiduciary duties. Anyone tampering with his work simply has no idea what those issues are and should leave it to others who do -- WingateChristopher 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this under the current form of the criticism section?: "Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocrats, fascists, monarchists, and communists. For debates on specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article, such as Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Polyarchy, Sortition, etc." If you consider that neutral, your a damn fool Additionally, I do not care what sort of work someone has done on obligation and authority, criticism comes from the fact that democracy IS authoritarian from anarchists of several individualist stripes, from minarchists, and "classical" liberals, etc. A fair description of a system must include the thoughts of those who have no favor for it as well. Otherwise it is more biased typical wikipedia nonsense . - Thorsmitersaw
Woudl anyone else be interested in helping me in this endeavor? Or perhaps creating a new article entitled something like... "Criticisms of Democracy". If that is appropriate for Wikipedia. If not then perhaps 'anarchist criticisms of democracy' or something equally as specific. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thorsmitersaw (
talk •
contribs)
04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
When discussing the contribution of life on the American frontier to democracy, it should be mentioned that this is a theory, however widely accepted. The point of the theory is that Americans on the frontier, isolated from cental authority, developed democratic and egalitarian communities, but also showed brutality toward aboriginal people, and lacked adequate judicial procedures. Supposedly, this new type of democracy influenced American attitudes to democracy, individuality and egalitarianism. This process did not occur in Canada, Australia, South America, or Russia, which also had new settlements, because the settlements remained under central control and had no need to develop new systems for maintaining order. Incidentally, the term "frontier", which means border, generally refers to the American frontier only.
I think it would be helpful to include these points. -- The Four Deuces 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There are 'some' aboriginals in Canada who would not accept that statement that Canada's experience with the aboriginals, the immigrants, those at the bottom of the social ladder were not treated well, or at least justly.
(we generalize for the sake of arguement and ignore the world of half-truths. For example, the government has at times given money to these same 'aboriginals' and some within those given money squandered it on themselves and did not give any to their fellow aboriginals. Happens today.
Yes the American experience or Canadian experience was bad, but who was responsible...? That is a difficult one to call.—
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, fascists, monarchists, and anarchists" Whaaaat????
Democracy is not the rule in all the world, and it is seen as obvious mostly in the United States!
There has been a lot of criticism about democracy since it was created, to the point that it probably deserves its own article rather than a simplistic paragraph. Sdistefano 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Cause? = Ultramarine.-- 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. Many people living in democracies, have in the past questioned the 'democratic nature' of the system. Seems the 'boys' clubs want to protect their game, and do so.
The American and Canadian system while they preach the gospel of being democratic, a critical examination of what they are, and what they should be suggests they are not 100% democratic, but rather 20-40%, creating a dictatorial position. Half and half.
The observation is that "the People' get a free vote but 'the system' takes the power from 'the people' and gives it to one person. This is far from a direct democracy, far, far from it. Even if you allowed a council of three or more to vote, which happens on some municipal councils, is a positive step, but where is the 'link' between 'the people' and the exeuctive vote ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if American and Canadian systems were 100% democratic, wether democracy is something good or not is also open to discussion. Many countries have monarchies to this day, and some of them do quite well. A lot has been written about the faults of democracy with respect to other systems (spreading of the idiocy of the masses, the lack of an entity that is inherently respected, the temporary charges that don't personally involve the man in power, etc etc etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdistefano ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
response: there is no such thing as "100% democratic." Democracy is always co-present with authoritarianism. Democracy is actually nothing more than critical resistance to authoritarianism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, and other repressive governance. Voting is just one institution designed to check the power of political authorities. The courts and other intergovernmental checking mechanisms are also supposed to facilitate questioning, criticism, and discussion about governance among those in government. In a republic where government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," democracy may be said to be present when citizens do not feel any aversion to voicing differences of opinion or otherwise engaging in ideological conflict with any other citizen. To my knowledge, the will to democracy has never been able to 100% overcome all forms of aversion, or just shyness, about engaging in ideological conflict. The goal of democratic governing should be to remove such barriers and institutionalize support mechanisms that help channel criticism and dissent to others so that they may address it as such. The goal is never to end or reduce criticism or dissent, but rather to facilitate its expression - and ensure that it is taken into account in governance. However, to assume that lack of 100% democracy constitutes failure is misconstrued and dangerously discouraging to continued attention to improving democracy. Democracy can never be 100% as long as the will to authority and power exist, which cannot be destroyed. Authoritarianism and repression can only be diagnosed and treated, while at the same time developing more democratic discourses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? This article has greatly improved. It remains propelt controversial, but the prior blatent pov biasis has been minimized. Should this tag remain? I think not. I plan to delete it if there is no objection. Raggz ( talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see my point above. The frontier theory is quoted as fact, then inaccurately described. The article implies that while democracy developed in America, Australia and Canada were comparable to tsarist Russia, which is not part of the theory at all. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 10:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I would delete the theory altogether. The article is factual and does not attempt to explain why or how democracy developed except in this one case. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Some considerations...as to if the current discussion presents this particular perspective.
LOGIC INCONSISTENCIES.
Often the statement by Churchill, the second is taken as gospel truth; this is incorrect.
The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. -Sir Winston Churchill Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried. -Sir Winston Churchill
Okay by examining the two and reading between the lines, it is somewhat leading to the realization that 'the average voter' could not lead a democracy. The second statement does not actually compare all the others to a 'democracy', for the 'ones tried' relative to Churchill's comments are not so identified, but assumed.
ACTUAL OBERSERVATIONS
While it is noted that 'republics' are some sort of derivation, some 'different level' of real democracies, the intention was to 'protect the minority from the majority'.
Problem is that some so called democracies are in fact not protecting the majority from the minority; false democracies.
Case in point look at the Ontario provincial governmental system election. In the last provincial election, Dalton McGuinty's Liberal party won 75% of the seats with 37% of the vote. He actually gets 'dictatorship ability. Balance this with the fact that in runnning for the leadership, McGuinty ran 4th in the first two elections; they use run-offs here.
Just to bring to your attention, this reality, and hopefully someone might be able to ensure that 'this far removed level' of democracy, is still considered to be a 'democracy',...perhaps we need another label ?
Happy New Year....! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Opps...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Caesar Squitti, you seem too intelligent to write here. Perhaps you could improve this article, yet it wouldn't last long. There are fanatics who monitor this page, notably Special:Contributions/Ultramarine but others as well.
If you improve this article your improvements will be undone by teenagers and ideological fanatics. Ironically this article shows how a tiny minority of propagandists can subvert democracy. It also shows how the idea "democracy" itself has become another authoritarian ideology that tolerates no criticism. -- 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 09:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was a believing in the utopia of our system...educated in the political science of this system, and believed it up until a few years ago. It became apparent that the Prime Minister did as he or she liked, with no connection to 'the people'.
If it took me decades to realize this, I would suspect that most of the other younger writers will take some time to understand that this is not a democracy, not a real one. I know I was one of them.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the Canadian political system goes, it was created, in 1867, by the British, as Canada was part of the colonies of England. In fact one of the first Govenor Generals of Canada was the son of the Queen of England. The Canadian parliamentary system was a system to enshrine political control to the Monarchs of England, while still appeasing the 'free vote' system that most people falsely believe is a democracy.
Its like the new 'washerless faucets' they don't have washers, they use a 'grommet' which is another different name for 'washer'.
We have the word 'democracy' and a critical analysis will see that the "demon" in and of words that corrupted this concept...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Democracy for the Few" May I add the reference to the book “Democracy for the Few” by Michael Parenti because (1) it shows that America is not a Democracy like we’re taught, and (2) it proves that America assassinated Socialists behind the scenes to force all attempts at “social justice & equality” to fail (Chile, etc) which was done to force all nations into wage-slavery which is slavery; (3) it shows how America hates equality and justice for all people instead of just a few rich people; (4) it shows how the most welfare given is to corporations and the rich people, not the poorest who need the financial help; (5) it shows how the rich & corporations pay little or no taxes while the poorest people pay the most in taxes; (6) it shows the power of the media & how they help keep people in slavery for wages, (7) how mostly poor people are sent to prisons but their crimes are much smaller than crimes committed by the richest people who mostly get suspended sentences; & many other very important facts. I’d also like to add a ref to “The Rich and Super-Rich” by Ferdinand Lundberg which shows the same things. May I add them to this article in “references”? Thank you. 69.228.231.62 ( talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It becomes apparent that many 'topics'within Wikipedia, have behind them decades of research that is ' black or white' thinking, that is that 'it' is all good or all bad.
Everything, except God, if there is one, would be perfect. So why all this 'resistence' to a critical discussion of any topic.
Take for example water.
The foundation of life, yet if out of balance can create death.
If we are to take this topic and elaborate from it, all topics should have a positive and negative dimension to them; the key is to provide some type of analytical balanced presentation.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In 'discriminating' between 'different types' or 'levels' of precious stones, they are judged relative to a scale, ie diamonds have a hardness of 10 (?), garnet 7 -7.5, etc.etc..
So perhaps a 'scale of comparision' would be useful in evaluating 'the degree' of democracy. Ie direct democracy would be a 10, a pareliamentary system is a 1.
While they are all gemstones, or democracies, they may need more clarification...?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Three important factors about so called democracies.
1. The vote required to elect a person. Ie the Vatican has just implemented a 2/3 majority. Canada's system is first past the post which is 100 / number of candidates plus one. So with 4 running in the election, the number is 25% plus one.
2. The ability of every elected individual to represent 'the people' that elected them. In Canada, there is very little of this, especially in majority governemnts.
3. Recall procedure. If 'the people' don't like what the government representatives are doing, they can 'recall' them. Some systems have this, others don't. Canada does not.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article focuses far to much on specific governmental systems and the different processes and manifestations of voting and majority rule. In my opinion, there should be more written about the "political philosophy" aspect of democracy. This article gives the impression that elections and majority rule are all that make up a democracy. It only scratches the surface of other factors, such as individual freedoms, equality and the rule of law. Additionally, the collection of maps and charts having to do with freedom and democracy in the modern world should be given a more prominent spot. Currently, they are hidden away beside the completely irrelevant "Ancient origins" and "Middle Ages" parts of the "History" section. They do not even seem to be directly referenced in the article. LK ( t| c) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There has to be some forms of criticism of democracy as a general idea. To redirect to specific forms is an obvious POV cop-out, because there are obviously broad ideas that define forms of democracy as stated in the opening paragraphs of this article. 69.153.82.19 ( talk) 23:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of including these maps and images in this article? They serve as nothing more than subjective opinions about a subjective topic, by no means are they authoritative or scientific. This especially regards the freedom house, since it bases its rankings on a mix of criteria, not all directly related to democracy. In my opinion, subjective, opinionated reports such as these which have received significant criticism should only be used in their respective articles, as they take away from the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, the studies are still opinions. Why are we including opinions in an article about an ideology? That takes away from its neutrality, like I said. Though it's not like this article was ever very neutral to begin with, what with a lack of a criticism section and all.
It doesn't matter if God himself did the research, opinions or objective stances of any sort don't belong in articles about ideologies, save perhaps for appropriately specified sections. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Either convince me that they're not violating NPOV policies or they're gone.
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves
This article exists to present readers with facts. With these facts, they can determine how "democratic and free" any given nation is on their own. Presenting readers with a bunch of giant maps and charts based on someone else's analysis about who's more "free and democratic" is POV. Understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That supports what I said perfectly: Let the facts speak for themselves. This isn't an article about peoples opinions or analysis, thus the images do not belong, unless under a specific section regarding opinions and other such subjective, non-factual views. Do you know the difference between fact and opinion? It wouldn't seem to be the case.
The images in question are a representation of an opinion. This disputes the neutrality of the article and displays a biased point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it in the most simple terms I possibly can. This article is about the IDEOLOGY called democracy. This article discusses the IDEOLOGY of democracy. Maps and graphs ranking countries using criteria based on personal views that are not globally agreed upon contribute absolutely nothing to presenting readers with any facts regarding the ideology of democracy whatsoever. It does however serve as a biased view of organizations who are arguably pushing an agenda.
This is why they are not npov, and this is why they should be removed. If someone wants to find out the ranking of countries according to -insert organization here- they can simply go to said article, or click one of the see also links at the bottom of the page.
only presenting only those from one side.
Exactly. You're finally beginning to understand! Now because of the fact that there is no opposing (non-western) study that attempts to rate democracy, only including one side is considered bias.
An opposing point of view meaning non-western. All of these studies originate from the same country and hold the same values, hence why they're not opposing views. You said yourself: WP does not exclude views and opinions, only presenting only those from one side.
Claiming that American and the UK hold opposing views on democracy is laughable. Show me a report from China, Russia, Pakistan.. oh wait they don't exist. Anyways, we're getting into semantics here. You've lost the argument and I've made all my points quite clear. I'm done arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted said images. They contribute nothing to learning about democracy and present the reader with a biased, pre-set idea of what democracy is or should be. They do not present a neutral point of view, as opinions of any sort regarding an ideology cannot be neutral. I'm not going to sit here and argue 10 pages about something that's already been concluded, so if you can find a credible non-western "democracy chart" to add to this page, then go ahead and re-add them. Otherwise, no propaganda please. Lets let the readers decide on their own what qualifies a country to be a democratic. Sbw01f ( talk)
Fact of the matter is you're going to keep arguing no matter what is said and how many times the same thing is repeated. The argument is over. I'm just going to kindly ask you to not start an edit war and let it be. Also, there is no such thing as a Marxist-Leninist state. Sbw01f ( talk)
Adding a map of communist states solves nothing as it is not a measurement of anything. I assure you I am following policy. Sbw01f ( talk)
Adding a map of communist states is not presenting a "view". The notion of communist states believing that they're democracies is already implied in the blue map. I think you just need to come to terms that these studies on measurement of democracy do not belong here. Sbw01f ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (or only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic.
To repeat what's already been stated, it is irrelevant to the topic of democracy what one group or another rates various countries based on their own criteria. This does not present the reader with any relevant information regarding the topic of democracy. The images in question are not only POV, but they're off topic. Sbw01f ( talk)
Sorry but your argument doesn't hold. Attempted measurements of democracy presented as authoritative are not relevant to the philosophy/ideology itself and are therefore off topic. Doesn't matter how noteworthy or popular they are. At the very best, they might deserve brief mention somewhere specifically regarding attempted measurements of democracy. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So did you not read anything I just wrote? Peer reviewed or not, it's off topic. If anyone wants to see those amazing peer reviewed articles, they can go check them out quite easily. There are links to them in the see also section.
Sbw01f ( talk) 10:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an article about what democracy is. These charts do not present any useful information about what democracy is. All they do is put a pre-set idea in the readers mind. ie. Propaganda. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Gravity must be measured in order to be understood on a scientific level. Further, it can be accurately measured in a factual, indisputable manner. Democracy cannot. Your comparison makes no sense. "Rankings" are not relevant to the history, philosophy or understanding of democracy. Sbw01f ( talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to like arguing a lot. Unfortunately, you're not making any clear points or valid arguments and my stance has not changed. You've lost this argument twice now, and continue to revert to semantics and ridiculously flawed strawman arguments. Please just accept the facts and move on. Judging by comments made by multiple other people here and in other discussion pages, you don't see very popular or honest regarding your editing habits, so maybe you should take a hint. I will argue no more. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Sbw01f ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow are you seriously? Selective memory or what? Just stop already. I cited Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic which you failed to refute, and will now again attempt to refute and predictably fail. The images are not going back up, keep propaganda where it belongs in its own article. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding the main point of my post again? What a surprise! My argument is not that it's propaganda, that's my opinion which has no say in whether or not the material is off topic. Sbw01f ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbw01f, you now have three editors reverting your edits. If these maps are used in peer reviewed studies as Ultramarine suggests then the maps showing which countries can be considered democratic can be a useful addition to the article in my opinion. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbw01f complained that the use of these rankings is a POV-issues of this article. Whether or not they were published in peer-reviewed articles has nothing to do with this. Special cases aside, NPOV-checking isn't a part of the peer review process. Especially in fields such as political science (where the peer-review doesn't have the same importance as in natural science anyway) peer-reviewed journals are supposed to include opinionating and editorializing, hence POV. NPOV does, however, demand that controversial rankings such as Freedom House's aren't shown to unexpecting readers without proper discussion. All of the "rankings" present a decidedly Anglo-American viewpoint, all of them are largely focussed on the freedom of trade (or what is seen as such by the world's leading economies), a criterium that is far from universally accepted as a defining factor. Malc82 ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see this is heading for one more Talk:Democracy discussion that goes in circles. If you (as a regular at Talk:FH) honestly think that labeling FH a highly controversial source is my unsupported OR, I won’t even dignify that with references, you know them. If you don’t see a problem in that their rankings try/pretend to measure freedom (not democracy) objectively and that freedom (as vague as that term is) is not the same as democracy, so be it. Btw, when I finished my po-sci minor in 1807 (the first two numbers might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure about the second half), peer-review only looked for methodological errors and factual accuracy. Articles are included if they are deemed valuable to the scientific debate, not only if they present all sides of the argument. Malc82 ( talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the polity data series, I decided to make a map of it on the grounds that it differs quite a bit from the other two (aside from the obvious best/worst ranked). Seems like less of a western popularity contest to me. Not that I think its attempt to measure democracy is any less of a joke than the others, as the mere suggestion that any country is "perfect" and has no room for improvement is foolish, but it gives a different perspective and presents the implication that democracy can't be accurately measured, only ball parked. I also got rid of the communist map since it's already implied that those countries consider themselves democratic with the blue map. (also, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of those countries claiming that they're the only true democracies, though I could be wrong). Sbw01f ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism of democracy? Ultramarine has repeatedly deleted any criticism of democracy, on this and other pages. Someone please help to ban this censoring user. Please consider reverting any of Ultramarine's edits to unfairly remove material.
I will restore the criticisms of democracy section as soon as some admin or group of users agrees to help stop Ultramarine. How many years of bigoted edits will we allow? Where can we complain? How can we edit anything on this page if Ultramarine will only remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at User_talk:Solidusspriggan this Ultramarine has been pushing his POV for years! Why does Wikipedia ban users for repeated edit warring, POV pushing, tendencious editing, yet not Ultramarine? Is there a bias in the wikipedia administration? Who would support a ban on Ultramarine editing "criticisms of democracy" (changed to the POV "arguments for and against democracy")? Can't we use Democracy here? 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. This user is clearly pushing an agenda, and does not in any way respect NPOV. Just check all of the articles he edits and you'll see clear, blatant bias. 99.240.27.210 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Ultramarine is NuclearUmpf is Zer0faults is SixOfDiamonds is SevenOfDiamonds. It can't be a coincidence that NuclearUmpf and Ultramarine have the same editing style (such as multiple tiny edits in a short span), obsessively editing all day long, all night, for weeks, months, years; on similar topics. Isn't use of sockpuppets grounds for a ban? Same quotes, spiral architecture, ultramarine blue pictures. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:NuclearUmpf&oldid=89448426 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ultramarine&oldid=90337986
Don't argue with Ultramarine; argument becomes a futile circle. He's an expert wiki-lawyer (well practiced) who points to wiki-rules he cleverly evades. He seems to enjoy antagonizing other users; he has collected personal attacks as if they were trophies on his userpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ultramarine/Hall_of_Fame_Comments&oldid=132365223 Let's wish him well as a person, but stop the agenda-pushing.
Ultramarine's cycle of sophistry 1) say "cite sources" then delete a "non-peer reviewed" source 2) insert peer-reviewed articles from pseudo-academic propaganda mills 3) if someone removes the POV material say "no deleting sourced material" 4) when editors are fed up say "no personal attacks." Arguing in circles; endurance trumps even-mindedness. After hundreds of edits, "Assuming good faith" eventually becomes untenable.
Unfortunately Ultramarine likely has friends, perhaps admins, to call on. Years pass, and there are still no criticisms of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Democracy without criticism (internal or external) is not a Democracy!
Why no mention that New Zealand is considered the worlds first real modern democracy, because it was the first country that allowed all people including women to vote? Seems hard (or perhaps more egotistical) to consider only USA in the section discussion modern democracy 222.154.237.42 ( talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Democracy was actually founded in ancient Greece and not in ancient India as you have said. India may have used democracy in their country but the Greeks had the first idea of democracy.Could the creator of this article please change this error of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euge246 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
== CLARIFY DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC AND INTERRELATIONSHIP == -revision of original title with direct reference to content: 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Original title: ==MY OPINION ON DEMOCRACY ==
The government of the United States of America was never intended to be a democracy. At least that was true until the definition of democracy was changed to include the definition of a republic. In effect, the language was changed to blur the distinctions. This type of language change is called "newspeak" [3].
When I was a child, in a democracy, every citizen voted on every issue. The only government that I know of as a democracy was Ancient Athens. I consider it an experiment that failed because the individuals were not politically trained. A democracy requires that every individual be knowledgeable about every issue and aware of the consequences of every decision. Also, every voter should remember the fate of Athens.
The more I read about democracy in Wikipedia, the more I think that this perversion of the definition is deliberate and designed to eventually destroy the concept that people are capable of ruling themselves. James thirteen ( talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- response - : Limiting the definition of democracy to voting would be reductive. Voting may facilitate or stimulate democracy but it is only one means of doing so; and it is not the case that voting on every issue maximizes the democratic potential of citizens. Drawing on the Dutch word for "vote" which is "stem," I take "voting" to also mean "voicing." Voicing opinions goes beyond voting in that voting is more passive and waits for the issue to be framed in a yes/no format. Voicing opinion, on the other hand, means actively contributing to a public discussion. For democracy to be working, it may not be as important that every citizen participates in every discussion as it is that every discussion continues in such a way that people continue to get the opportunity to intervene in the business of the republic, even if they only enter into the discussion at a later point.
Democracy is basically a free-market of ideas - so one of the criteria for a free market to be free is that firms/people can enter into the market, or exit it, freely. Theoretically, as long as ideas and opinions are being exchanged openly and publicly, discussions that you exit will surface on your agenda again later as they become news-making events. Counting majority votes on issues may be one means of solving a highly contested issue to arrive at a decision for action, but no one should think that it is somehow democratic to close the discussion because "the majority has ruled." Ultimately, the discussion will continue until a time when everyone is convinced - which is in all likelihood NEVER EVER going to happen. So democracy is really just a constantly evolving ideological discussion (or rather multiple, interacting discussions).
Decisions and actions must be taken in order to move things along, but people have to learn to make decisions and take actions in a spirit of tentative certainty, on the basis of faith that they are doing the best they can in the moment in which they felt the necessity to act. Coalition action, or multilateral decision-making, are in a sense democratic, because they involve ideological negotiation and compromise. However, they are also anti-democratic, or at least anti-republican, because one of the conditions for building a coalition or consulting others to act multilaterally is suppressing or censoring the ability to act individually in good faith. If, during coalition negotiations, an individual believes in good faith that action is necessary prior to having reached a consensus decision, they must act on their sense of need because failing to do so would, in their estimation, result in preventable damage. They may be proven to have been wrong in retrospect, after the fact, but to act independently in good faith is a risk that is outweighed by the consequences of failure to act, when lack of action allows preventable consequences to take place. This is not to say that individuals may avoid democratic discussion altogether (which is technically impossible anyway since to act independently still requires that you have received information). It just means that the use of "democracy" to tie the hands of individuals from acting independently of a coalition has anti-democratic consequences. A coalition works counter to democracy in constraining the freedom of individuals to act independently of the coalition, even when it is organized as a means of incorporating more opinions into decision-making.
The conflict between coalition democracy and autocratic decision-making is not really an issue. The real issue this question obscures has to do with the status or role of individual actions and decisions within democracy. Coalition need not have a repressive effect if individuals are not compelled to subordinate themselves to the authority structures developed and recognized through the coalition process. Autocratic decision need not deny open democratic discourse if the individual acting does so in the spirit of taking initiative where necessary instead of just acting out of self-interest or attempting to achieve dominance within the coalition for personal gain. Problematically, this depends on the intentions of the individual, and the spirit in which s/he acts, which are vague and subjective. Again, however, it is unconscionable to place the rules of coalition-discipline above the ethics of acting to prevent negative consequences, if those consequences are deemed to outweigh the consequences of ignoring authority or coalition-protocols at a particular moment. 24.250.239.250 ( talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
James thirteen, this talkpage is not a message board. It's for discussing the article Democracy. Please don't use Wikipedia talkpages as your soapboxes. Quoting Wikipedia:Talk page:
"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Bishonen | talk 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
This article is really fucking messy. It's just a hotch-pot of ideas stuck together. Read the first sentence. Rule by the ruled? It's so wishy-washy and indistinct. Tells you very little. And skimming over it: the stuff about the american frontier and democracy is a little dubious. I can understand how frontier life contributed to egalitarianism, which is important for democracy, but a direct link is not as clear. And definately the stuff above about NZ extending suffrage to women first is important. It's just: it seems the article needs to be alot clearer than it is. Needs to be structured and the opening paragraphs need to be trimmed down A LOT. ( 58.111.107.59 ( talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
It is true that some parts of Ancient Greece had a type of pseudo-democracy, as the head was elected, and deicions taken by all adult male citizens in big meetings. But I would like to claim that firstly, this is not in any ay unique to Greece. The scandinavian cultures during iron-age had the same structures (although during the viking age the elections of kings in Denmark and Norway became a formality). Hence, we could equally claim that democracy has it's origins in ancient Sweden. :) But secondly, that would also be wrong, because nothing of these democracies remain.
The origin of democracy is rather Western Europe and United States. In particular it started with Magna Carta, and then slowly grew, until the ideas of democracy appeared among western thinkers, with United States as it's first (also flawed) implementation.
The origins in Greece are nothing more than a 19th century myth when ancient greece was cool. :) I propose that claim it removed. -- Regebro ( talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a few quick points to adress the first post. There are distinct reasons why Athenian democracy from antiquity is considered so important when talking about the origins of modern democracy. Classical texts were massively popular, especially in renaissance Europe. Plato's Republic is still considered very important reading for modern politics students. It is not just that the Athenians (and others following their example) had an ad hoc system of voting on everything, it's that they wrote extensive documents about it that were VERY popular for centuries (basically half of the writing that wasn't the Bible). It was the Athenian literature on democracy that was so important, and helped spur people forward when they started to question their monarchy. The magna carta was just the king asserting his property rights to the pope. Important: yes, but it was largely incidental to the effort to make a democracy. Athens was a major driver of the ideological thrust for democracy. The Romans less so: in fact their part should be toned down a little. They did develop a republic, but to consider them democratic is to completely misread the sources (plebs voting is not the same as representative democracy whatsoever). ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 04:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
First of all, encyclopedia Brittanica is not a good source for wikipedia. Surely it is clear that there are dangers with an encyclopedia referencing an encyclopedia. And you can't reference a WHOLE BOOK when citing a source for a specific piece of evidence. Point out a page number so other people can see what you are pointing to, otherwise the cite is completely irrelevant. As it stands, there is absolutely no credible source for the information in the paragraph. HOWEVER, the paragraph is not necessarily wrong either. But it is slightly misleading and doesn't capture how modern democracies really fail (they instead degenerate into a patron/client relationship where the president gives money, political benefits and postions of power to his clients in return for their support. For examples of this see such third-world countries as Zimbabwe and Italy). The real point is that this paragraph belongs in the body of the article as the introduction is too large as it stands. There is room for this in the article, and an expansion of it, but not in the first paragrapg ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
Given an appropriate association—a city, for example—who among its members should enjoy full citizenship? Which persons, in other words, should constitute the demos? Is every member of the association entitled to participate in governing it? Assuming that children should not be allowed to participate (as most adults would agree), should the demos include all adults? If it includes only a subset of the adult population, how small can the subset be before the association ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos)?
No doubt there will be critics of democracy for as long as democratic governments exist. The extent of their success in winning adherents and promoting the creation of nondemocratic regimes will depend on how well democratic governments meet the new challenges and crises that are all but certain to occur.
The gravest dangers of any particular regime are always noted by its partisans because those dangers are inherent in the unchecked supremacy of the regime's own favorite and dominant moral spirit -- and because as a consequence those who prescribe the needed antidotes will almost inevitably be suspected of being "anti-regime". (Aristotle Politics)
In modern democracy, the courageously loyal political scientist will, imitating Tocqueville, limn the dangers of democracy by reminding of aristocracy's and monarchy's contrasting moral and spiritual and civic strengths. He will not allowed to be forgotten that democracy is meant to be an aristocracy which has broadened into universal aristocracy; that liberal education is the ladder by which we try to ascend from mass democracy to democracy as original meant.
... to the dangers of inherent by the unchecked advance of of the treasured moral principles and individual liberty and popular sovereignty...
In the absence of check and balances, a branch is likely to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.
One of the most important contributions to democratic practice has been the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure that political power is dispersed and decentralized. It is a system founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed and when it is held as close to the people as possible.
Proponents of separation of powers believe that it protects democracy and forestalls tyranny.
Without an elaborate constitutional system of check and balances and a respect for the rule of law, it is all too easy for representative democracy to deteriorate into a "tyranny of the majority".
The check and balance system renders us safe from the danger of anarchy, for though ultimate control is vested in the people, sufficient powers are entrusted to the governmental mechanism to protect it against popular passion. the system likewise protect us against despotism.
The great dilemma of America's constitutional democracy was and still is how to craft a system with sufficient power to fulfill its functions, but not so much to endanger individual liberty. As a response to this dilemma the constitution placed limits on national governmental power such as checks and balances and the federal division between the state and the national governments.
Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.
so how would they then be able to stop this if this is what the people wants? Answer: They can't.
In a democracy, only the people can keep the democracy democratic.
I have re-composed the disputed sentence and place it back with the new sources (no britannica, no chomsky) that clearly state the content of the sentence. If it still is poorly written then please improve my English. Delete, only if you have reliable sources (also post them here) that clearly state the opposite. Enjoy Life! A.Cython ( talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, 'checks and balances' is a cliche that is overused in high school textbooks and is problematic becuase it is undefined.
The separation of powers is important, as are many other things. And note that the separation of state and federal powers is NOT necessary for a democracy (as one of your sources claims), and is rather a UScentric view.
They require further discussion that is not appropriate for the introduction (which brings me to my main point: the introduction is over cluttered and the bulk of what is in their needs to be brought down into the body of the article under specific headings). My other problem is that you seem to be half stuck in antiquity. Tell me about a democracy that has "sunk" into an oligarhcy since 300 BC. Modern countries are not city states and their governments are far more complex, that to call one an oligarchy in any context is to over simplify the issue. If you're going to maintain the use of the word 'oligarchy' you're going to have to provide a definition of the term that applies to real world failures of democracies. What really needs to be adressed in this case is what democracies actually become when they fail.
I would like to point out here that I never stated the paragraph should be outright deleted, but rather that it is misleading, (was) badly sourced (and arguably, the sources do not infer exactly what the paragraph is sayin), and that it doesn't fit in the introduction (you don't have the introduction of the dictatorship article mentioning that, without careful checks and balances, dictatorships will fail and become democracies).
**Majority Rule is not a democratic element and it needs to be checked and balanced otherwise it turns into tyranny of the majority
**Elections is also not a democratic element since by having representatives you remove from the many the participation from the policy making. Again, certain checks and balances are needed to ensure that the elections are done in a democratic fashion, i.e. all citizens can became representatives and the weight of vote is equal to everybody etc etc
The check and balance system renders us safe from the danger of anarchy, for though ultimate control is vested in the people, sufficient powers are entrusted to the governmental mechanism to protect it against popular passion. the system likewise protect us against despotism.
Even if we accept the doubtful statement that without "checks and balances" a branch can accumulate power but without "checks and balances" it can't, how would the centralisation of power into one branch lead to a complete lack of central power?
Yes these things are democratic elements. They do not, by themselves, guarantee democracy.
The elections must be fair and open, the majority must be a real majority, not a majority of the minority, etc.
That is, in short, to be a democracy in practice, the democracy must be a so called Liberal democracy.
But claiming that this is the only real democracy is a POV, which is why the article does not claim that.
I think I was correct in you have an unstated goal, namely getting in some sort of opinion on what "real" democracies are.
I only add this for the people not get confused.
It is good for the people to know the definitions. A.Cython ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.
Although this is POV and I was sure it will be deleted soon, I just realized it's so vaguely formulated that it may actually be able to stay. Crackpots who think countries like Cuba, China, Iran or Singapore is a demoray will probably interpret the whole paragraph as support for this, with the military dictatorships and censorship being the "checks and balances". ;) I could be wrong, of course, and then it will get deleted as soon as a commie sees the sentence....
However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.
Of the three references given, only one is actually available online, and it is a book from 1922 claiming absurdly that these checks and balances protect us from "Anarchy". A book written in 1922 can't really be expected to understand democracy either, as the world at that time had had only marginal experience of it. I still think this sentence should go away, or be changes to "then a branch of the system of rule is in theory able to accumulate power", as it, as far as I am aware, never has happened.
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of representative democracy
Well, this artice is about democracy, not representative democracy. That needs to be changed, or moved to the correct article. -- Regebro ( talk) 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I am wondering if anyone can direct me to any material about why is democracy preferred (better than) autocratic society? Here, I do not mean a society like Zimbabwe or Myanmar, but rather a developed, rich, advanced society (like America) having a leader (non-elected) that would care about the people and about long-term development and well-fare of the citizens (let's suppose that the leader would be very rich, so that he/she would not have any motives to shun long-term goals in favor of short-term, personal gain). Any ideas and sources?
Tom 193.2.86.3 ( talk) 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why benevolent dictators are a bad idea you can surely read about in almost any book about politics? It doesnt matter if the country is rich or not. IN fact Zimbabwe was relatively rich and developed until Mugabe destroyed it. :/ If you want hard facts and detailed arguments, R.J. Rummels web page on how democracies are more peacful and tend not to kill people is good http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ and especially http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DEMOC.HTM -- Regebro ( talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the previous incarnations of this page, and going all the way back to 2004 there's been alot of interest in this article but it's been a bit of a blob: its changed shape alot but the quality hasn't gotten any better. I even went over to French wikipedia and used google translate on it, and even though it's not great either, the format is a little nicer. The ugliest part of this article is the "Forms of Democracy", because it is a list. We should open with "Political Theory" and describe democracy, pulling some stuff down from the intro into it and leaving the introduction a lot lighter than it is. Here we could include "types" but have it in paragraph format. For example: "broadly speaking, there are two types of democracies, direct and representative." Then talk about direct, and then talk about representative. Include discussions for democracy and those against (off the top of my head, it's good because it tends to give equal rights, it's bad because it can degenerate into a popularity contest). Overall netting a NPOV. Then go into the history, starting with antiquity and then, below it, mentioning societies that indepently came up with a democracy like the athenians. Then go into political history, eg Magna Carta, and social history, eg the enlightenment, that together helped democracy. Then talk about the UNited States, France, England, etc etc. "Quotes" "List" and "notes" can most likely stay. For an example of a featured politics article that we can base our format on (note format, not content), have a look at Libertarianism. ( Pez Dispens3r ( talk) 07:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
I think if Human society wants to become a better civilization, then it begins with a good form of Democracy & Socialism. The education they teach at schools is not at all morality focussed, but public morality is just as important as democracy.
Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to raise objection to the otheruses link to Democratic Party as it seems too party-oriented for top line of the article, which I think should aim to be party-neutral. I realize that Democratic redirects to this article and understand the double meaning of Democratic due to the party system, however, I believe that ambiguity should be addressed on a disambig page on Democratic instead of redirecting here, similar to the approach of the Democrat disambig. Proposing to create disambig on Democratic and remove otheruses link to Democratic Party from this article. Thoughts? - ChrisRBennett ( talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is the section on criticism of democracy? IIRC I saw it some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.171.155 ( talk) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
When things don't work as they should work, enlightenment/information must be allowed without being labelled an enemy of democracy. By the way, have a look here, how things can appear in a wrong light, [6], I added Mark Crispin Miller. The deletionwork seems as if I had added the unsigned words before, too.
I wanted to take exception to the lines in the introductory section of this page that say: "The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties." In my opinion this is innaccurate. The United States was considered to be a democracy even when it limited the right to vote to white, property-owning males. It did not concede benefits to the African American slaves who lived in the US (the famous Dred Scott case illustrates this), nor did it grant suffrage to everyone until less than 100 years ago. And yet, since the US Constitution had been accepted as law, the US was considered to be a democratic form of government. Therefore, I would strongly urge that the wording in this introduction be changed - democracies do not necessarily insure that all members have equal access to power, nor that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. This statement is absolutely incorrect and should be ommitted or changed. Saukkomies 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes sets the earliest democracies in Sumeria, and references an article by Thorkild Jacobsen. I've now read that article, and there is some huge problems with it. Basically he bases the statement of democracy on city assemblies which he claims where the highest instance of power in the cities, and open for all male citizens. However, his claim that they were the highest power is based on the behavior of the gods in later texts. That is wonky to say the least. And no, that's not original research, you can find the same view here: [7]
His claim that the assembly was open for all citizens is even more shaky. It's based on the fact that the word for assembly, puhrum, is used interchangeable with the word for city, âlum. This he claims must mean that all citizens are a part of the assembly, which is an obvious non-sequitur.
I have no problem believing that ancient sumeria had a democracy of greek type. After all, it existed in other places, like Scandinavia. But there seems to be no actual proof for it. There are no texts that says that all citizen is a part of the assembly, that is pure speculation from Jacobsens side. I think it might we worth mentioning that there are hints on earlier democracies, but we need to change the text back that claims that Mesopotamia had the earliest democracies, because there are no proof for this. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We have no indication that there was a developmental connection between the Greek democracy and a hypothetical precursor, or that any record of earlier democracy survived to influence later people and cultures, as that of Greece. M. I. Finley has asserted that "What ever the facts may be [about democracies in early Mesopotamia], their impact on history, on later societies, was null. The Greeks and only the Greeks discovered democracy in that sense precisely as Christopher Columbus, not some Viking seaman discovered America."
Seems like a lot of people are complaining about a lack of one, so I wrote up an initial draft. -- LightSpectra ( talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The word "democracy" is of Greek origin and historically referred to the Athenian form of government. But Athens gets just a paragraph in this article and is emphasized only slightly more Iroquois or Bushman. Uthman was chosen caliph after consultation among six people. I don't see it how this can be considered an example of democracy. Venice was an aristocracy with a Council of Ten elected by wealthy merchants.
Something should be said about the historical use of the word. Democracy acquired a bad reputation because Thucydides blamed it for Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Before the French Revolution, "democracy" was almost always a negative word and implied mob rule. The founding fathers emphasized that the U.S. Constitution created a republic, not a democracy.
I think the paragraph on the Roman Republic needs a rewrite. That Roman senators were generally nobles didn't make Rome any less democratic -- think of all the U.S. congressman who are lawyers. Senators were normally former elected officials, i.e. chosen more or less democratically. To be a noble in Rome that meant you were descended from a consul (head of state). In ancient times, ancestry was recognized as a legitimate qualification for office, somewhat like having an Ivy League degree nowadays. Since they were subject to lex Claudia, nobles were thought less likely to have conflicts of interest. Kauffner ( talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While Republican Rome did have a popular assembly, it was - unlike in Classical Athens - the Senate, dominated throughout its existance by the rich aristocratic families, where crucial political decisions were taken. It is this feature which decisively defines the Roman Republic as an oligarchy rather than a democracy.
Anyway, the part of the problem is what exactly is "democracy". If we define it as a system of rule that favors the many (who are the poor) and we are 100% strict with this definition then there was only society in the history to achieve this. If we are less strict there are more but if you are even less strict then you may end up including Rome and Sparta as democracies as well, thus rewriting the history books. Thankfully, WP is about what the academic books write not what we want. Now, was for example Iroquois a democracy? Well I do know. There are some books around but I am not convinced and at the moment there is an academic war on this issue. So if you have some proposals backed by sources feel free to edit. A.Cython ( talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is also (from my perspective) in the agreement with the scientific community. It might worth checking the following book if you want, "History of democracy, the unfinished journey, 508 BC to AD 1993" by John Dunn (who is one of top scholars on the field). A.Cython ( talk) 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It reads more like definitions taught by (and to a certain extent imposed by) the Anglo-American world, especially the United States, rather than a historical and world-wide perspective. It asserts a certain presumed correct form of democracy, rather than defining the concept. This is not to say this presumed correct form isn't good and proper and the way for all right-thinking people (also not to say that it is), but they are assertions of POV.
This opening "neutral" and "objective" comment is in fact controversial: "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system." in fact, this is more likely to reference to (although is again confusingly not synonymous with) a republic. Then what follows is a de facto attack on direct democracy.
The following paragraph is based on assertions about a certain view of democracy, after a passing mention of "several varieties": "There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally[14]. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15]"
Yes, this particular paragraph has citations, but one could, say, write a structurally equivalent paragraph extolling Soviet democracy, and cite any number of Marxist-Leninist theorists and thinkers at Soviet universities, and it wouldn't even necessarily be intellectually empty, but few I think would accept it as definitive and NPOV.
And I have no idea why Fareed Zakaria has been elevated to an intellectual status where his questionable concept of "illiberal democracy" is seen as important enough to anchor the first paragraph; at least, it should be recognized that "illiberal democracy" and direct democracy are not synonyms.
If I have time I'll prune and I hope do some sum-up that references the more complete survey of democracy towards the end of the article. 67.49.168.151 ( talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)I
I'm not sure why my signature didn't show, I had signed in. Doprendek ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The current line suggests power or the system is run by people...well as opposed to what ?, machines ?
Most definitions I have seen is that 'the people' (as in a majority) are the holders of power.
Any thoughts ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey" is not independent but sponsored by the US gouvernment and the survey is strongly partial. It can not serve as an independent index. -- Englishazadipedia ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Democracy always doesn't work for the good of the world. For example American voters selected Bush junior, he invaded Iraq, followed is the Iraqi civil war and lot of civilians were killed (and are being killed now). Wrongly assuming Bush has done the right thing, Americans selected Bush again.
Is this means one man's (Americans) Democracy is another man's death (Iraqi) ? Or is Democracy in a Superpower doesn't always help a person from a different country ?
If a democratic government is re-elected on the basis that it had won a war, what kind of democracy is that ?
Will that prompt for a government to initiate a unjustfiable war (to win the election) in which thousands of people from a different country can be killed ? (or even thousand of people from the same country of different ethnic background can be killed).
Should there be a comment added on this subject in this article about it ? - Iross1000 ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)