|
Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums, open to all or most citizens. It is now commonly used as a synonym for liberal-democratic systems in nation-states. The meaning of the qualifier 'liberal' in this context is not agreed, see below and the main article Liberal democracy. Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organisations.
Since there are other forms of government, the preference for the democratic form is itself an ideology, and a source of conflict. Despite its historical importance, there is no separate name for this ideology, it is referred to as 'pro-democracy' or simply 'democracy'. It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government. Democratisation is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy, and the historical impact of modern democracy consists mainly in successive democratisations of nation-states. If it continues, this process will make the liberal-democratic nation-states the standard form of human society - a fundamental transition, since they are a historically recent innovation.
The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia). The components of the word are δημος (demos), the people; κρατειν (kratein), to rule; and the suffix ία (ia). The term means "rule by the people".
Historical evolution
- Main article: History of democracy
The term 'democracy - or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word - was coined in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. That state is generally seen as the earliest example of a system corresponding to some of the modern notions of democratic rule. Only an estimated 16% of the total population had the right to vote; women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded from the franchise. However, the ancient Athenian voters did make decisions directly, rather than voting for representatives, as in a republic. In contrast, only members of parliament were chosen for the first elected English parliament in 1265, and decisions were then made unilaterally by that parliament.
Over time, the meaning of 'democracy' has changed, and the modern definition has largely evolved since the 18th century, alongside the successive introduction of "democratic" systems in many nations. The pro-democracy pressure group Freedom House argues that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that today 120 (62%) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies. They count 25 (19%) nations with 'restricted democratic practices' in 1900 and 16 (8%) today. They counted 19 (14%) constitutional monarchies in 1900, where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none today. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.[1]
Democracy is sometimes a de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case. Canada is nominally a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by the democratically elected Parliament of Canada. In the United Kingdom, the 'sovereign' is the hereditary monarch, but the de facto (legislative) sovereign is the electorate, via their elected representatives.
Essential elements of a democracy
Democracy as a form of government always has the following characteristics:
- there is a demos, a group which takes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
- there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
- there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a parliament). There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies.
- the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts), which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.
- the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
- the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.
- in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result. In Europe, eurosceptic nationalists argue that the European Union does exactly that, and the EU has created a parallel democratic structure in the European Parliament. That means that EU member states do, to a certain extent, have two forms of government, and the status of a 'democratic Europe' is contentious and unresolved.
Popular sovereignty
Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. The most famous example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The term usually used for this is popular sovereignty. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.
Popular sovereignty is usually taken to include representative democracy, where in fact it is the elected representatives who rule. However, supporters of direct democracy often question the democratic nature of representative democracy. Popular sovereignty can imply that 'the people' exercise regular control over their representatives, or it can imply they do nothing until the next election. That would not necessarily make the country an oligarchy or a dictatorship - the political traditions in each democracy tend to determine how much politics there is between elections.
Political legitimacy and 'democratic culture'
All forms of government depend on their political legitimacy, that is, their acceptance by the population as the legitimate government of a legitimate state. Without that, they are little more than a party in a civil war, since their decisions and policies will be resisted, probably by force. Apart from those with anti-statist objections, such as anarchists and libertarians, most people are prepared to accept that governments (as such) are necessary. Failure of political legitimacy usually occurs when the unity of the state itself is disputed, through separatism, internal ethnic or religious conflicts, or irredentism. It can however result from conflicting political orientations, such as those preceding the Spanish Civil War.
In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losers accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power. They should not have to fear loss of life or liberty, and will continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself. Ideally political competitors may disagree, but acknowledge the other side's legitimate role, and ideally society encourages tolerance and civility in public debate. This form of political legitimacy implies that all sides share common fundamental values. Voters must know that the new government will not introduce human sacrifice, or compulsory child prostitution, or something else they find totally abhorrent. Shared values, not democracy as such, guarantee that. For that reason, religious differences are a threat to political legitimacy, especially with contradictory views on what is 'abhorrent'. For instance, in many western democracies, value judgments on abortion are not shared to the degree necessary for long-term political legitimacy.
For countries with no tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to create such a democratic political culture. Where there are continuing ethnic conflicts, it may be impossible, and recent criticism of rapid democratisation points out that it may accentuate previously suppressed ethnic tensions. The creation of a "loyal opposition" is especially difficult, in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence, and it would require gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government.
Real world meaning: liberal democracy
- Main article: Liberal democracy
In common usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. The two are used synonymously, and arguably cannot exist independently in the modern colloquial use of the word democracy. The minimal characteristics of democracy (listed above) are not generally considered to make a democracy 'liberal'. Some people see the essence of liberal democracy as the presence of constitutional barriers to violation of certain culturally subjective individual rights, and sometimes also collective rights. The rights are relevant because they protect the minority to some extent, and liberal democracy is sometimes summarised as "majority rule with minority rights." However, institutional protection for specific minority rights limits the democratic power of the majority, on those specific issues, and can not in itself resolve a conflict between the two groups. A political system where democratically-elected representatives govern in accordance with a constitution that protects individual liberties is also known as a republic. Democracies without protection of minority rights are now often called illiberal democracies.
In practice, the term 'liberal democracy' now denotes a collection of defining criteria, some of which are unrelated to each other. They are sometimes presented as a list of demands, to be fulfilled during a democratisation process. Note that many liberal democracies have override mechanisms which can make them temporarily less liberal, if applied (via the elected representatives or via referenda).
Preconditions and structure
Although they are not a system of government as such, it is now common to include aspects of society among the defining criteria of a liberal democracy. The presence of a middle class, and a broad and flourishing civil society are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy.
Western support for democratisation is almost always associated with support for the free market. In western countries, they do seem inseparable, but that is a geographically and historically limited view. China, which is certainly not a liberal democracy, has a free market economy. The emergence of capitalism pre-dates the emergence of democracy, which leads some theorists to conclude that there is a historical sequence at work, and that the free market is not only a precondition, but will will ultimately ensure the transition to democracy, in countries such as China. In this view property rights, and the right to found a business entreprise, are pre-conditions for democracy.
The most liberal of the many criteria now used to define liberal democracy (or simply 'democracy'), is the requirement for political pluralism, which is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties. The liberal-democratic political process should be competitive, and analogies with the free market are often used in this context.
The liberal-democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. In the American political tradition, the purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government, and American ideas of liberal democracy are influenced by this. They emphasise the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. European constitutional liberalism is more likely to emphasise the Rechtsstaat, usually translated as rule of law, although it implies a specific form of state or regime.
Liberal democracy is also defined by universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. However, the universality is relative: many countries regarded as democratic have practised various forms of exclusion from suffrage. Voting rights are limited to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. In any case, decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting.
Democratic freedoms
The most often quoted criteria for liberal democracy take the form of specific rights and freedoms. They were originally considered essential for the functioning of a a liberal democracy, but they have acquired such prominence in its definition, that many people now think they are democracy. The use of the Freedom House surveys is illustrative: they are widely quoted as a measure of 'democracy' in each country, but in fact they rate the degree of human, civil, and political rights. This approach to defining democracy is partly propagandistic - democracy is presented as a list of 'good things', and associated with 'freedom'. Nevertheless it indicates a real shift in thinking about liberal democracy: the most notable thing about these lists is, that they do not describe a form of government at all. A country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections: if the rights and freedoms define democracy, then it would be a democracy. (The Polity IV project does directly assess the level of democracy, see below).
The most commonly cited 'democratic' rights and freedoms are at best relative indicators of democracy. Democracies, in specific areas and for specific groups, do limit political freedom, but perhaps less so than other forms of government...
- Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest is a classic 'democratic' freedom. However in many democracies, anti-democratic expression is specifically excluded from this freedom.
- Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources is considered a characteristic of liberal democracy. For certain groups, however, it may be limited: Islamist media now face restrictions in many democracies, including censorship of satellite broadcasting in France, and proposed bans on Islamist websites in several countries.
- Freedom of association is also restricted in democracies, for groups considered a threat to state or society. Most democracies have procedures to ban organisations, on suspicion of terrorism, for instance, and usually without a prior judicial procedure. The European Union has an official list of banned organisations, overriding the freedom of association in the European Convention on Human Rights and the national constitutions.
- Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law is considered a characteristic of liberal democracy, but the United States holds certain categories of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and possibly in other secret prisons, without trial, and without any specific grounds in domestic or international law. If relatively small numbers of people, seen as mortal enemies by the majority of the population, are excluded from legal protections, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy: it is not qualitatively different from repressive autocracy, but quantitatively different.
Some people think that a free and informative media is of more consequence than the presence of formal voting rights. A dissident is unlikely to be elected despite a nominally free and secret ballot, if voter knowledge of the dissident candidate is entirely controlled by a competing candidate. A government which does not formally allow itself to be voted out of office, may be unable to maintain its power over the long term, if a truly free and informative media allows dissidents to criticise it.
Polity IV ranking criteria
The Polity IV project of the University of Maryland's Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM) [2], is funded by the United States government, and annually assesses all territories with a distinct political regime (polities). To assess the degree of democracy, it scores them on ‘authority characteristics’, which are indicative of the liberal-democratic ideals of government.
- Regulation of Executive Recruitment: institutionalized procedures regarding the transfer of executive power.
- Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment: extent to which executives are chosen through competitive elections.
- Openness of Executive Recruitment: opportunity for non-elites to attain executive office.
- Executive Constraints: operational (de facto) independence of chief executive.
- Regulation of Participation: development of institutional structures for political expression.
- Competitiveness of Participation: extent to which non-elites are able to access institutional structures for political expression.
Elections as rituals
Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. Some regimes allow citizens to elect only those candidates that affirm the state ideology, and this would not qualify them as democracies. Elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. Historical examples include the USSR under the CPSU before its collapse in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.
Elections can diverge from the liberal-democratic norm in several ways:
- restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election, because of their race, social status, or beliefs
- restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the laws that they are permitted enact (failure of popular sovereignty)
- restrictions on amending the constitution, or constitutional laws
- voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)
- falsification of the results
'Democracy' versus 'republic' in the United States
The definition of the word 'democracy' has not been constant, and there are specific national differences in interpretation and usage. In American constitutional theory and historical usage, and especially when considering the works of the American Founding Fathers, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy. A representative democracy, where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution, is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology is still used, especially in political debate between political conservatives and Libertarians.
The original framers of the U.S. Constitution saw a danger that majority rule would limit freedom of the individual. (See Tyranny of the majority below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [3] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.
Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.)
Proportional versus majoritarian representation
Some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority (majoritarian representation).
This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.
Socialist democracy
Communism (in the sense of the ultimate stage of social development according to Marxist theory) and anarchism are political theories that would employ a form of direct democracy and have no state independent of the people themselves.
However, most states governed by a communist party have become dictatorships and remain thus as long as the party stays in power. Socialist theorists such as Tony Cliff have argued that most communist states become dictatorships because the countries in which communist parties came to power were largely societies in which the productive forces of development did not reach a level sufficient to support socialism.
Advantages and disadvantages of democracy
Structural disadvantages
Democracies may have inherent defects, arising from their own structure (the essential elements of any democracy). The demos is a fixed unit - in practice a nation-state - and that it may not be an appropriate unit for decision. It may not correspond territorially with the appropriate reach of the decision. For instance, the Rhine and Danube basins have an international authority, but it there is no 'demos' corresponding to a river basin. Some versions of bioregionalism propose to create them, to take natural units rather than nations as the basis for units of government.
The nation-state as demos is often too large for internal regional issues, but that can be resolved by devolution of powers. It may be too small for global issues, and as yet there is no simple resolution to that issue. Including non-members of the demos in decision-making contradicts the idea of democracy, especially if they live somewhere else. Internally this is also a problem, since immigrants are not citizens. The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections. However, the idea of ’foreigners’ voting in national elections is unacceptable to many nationalist parties in the EU, and politically contentious. In most cases they remain excluded from suffrage.
Public choice theory, which is often associated with libertarianism, is concerned with related problems, where individual voter preferences and behaviour may interfere with what voters in general might regard as 'good government'.
Hostile groups
Democracy, and especially liberal democracy, may assume a sense of shared values in the demos. It may assume that the demos is in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, the use of the democratic process to target unpopular minorities is also common in established democracies, often in the form of anti-immigrant populism.
Too Many Laws
A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Changing laws make it impossible for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. A legal system where any ordinary citizen can expect to be breaking some law in ignorance most of the time is an invitation for law-enforcement to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternal natural law - which may bring the whole legal system into disrepute.
Tyranny of the majority
- This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.
Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it will become a "tyranny of the majority." The expression was coined by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - not then referring to democratic government, but to social conformity. The issue of majority dominance was however known during the ancient Greek democracies. It is independent of universal suffrage, but it implies a broad franchise (otherwise there would be conflicting minorities). It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalised (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.
Most cases involve conflicting values, where the majority values are the basis of policy, against the wishes of a minority:
- several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', the burqa, the niqaab. In France, they are banned under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion.
- prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. In the United States distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
- the law on abortion is typically determined by the religious attitude of the majority. For "pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists, unborn children are an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority, and a ban on abortion is a proper use of state power: their opponents disagree.
- recreational drug use is also typically legalised (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
- society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago, in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious views of the majority.
Not all majority-minority conflicts relate to values. There may be fundamental conflicts of interest between groups.
- in the United States, the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticised as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
- the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. However, this is generally offset to some degree, by their better access to relevant expert advice (tax consultants and lawyers).
- in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may be disadvantaged by a majority who resent transfer taxation. Especially when they form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic proces to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state. The initial abandonment of poor, ethnic-minority, residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina illustrated the degree to which a minority underclass can be isolated in a democracy.
- in Zimbabwe, the majoritarian racism of Robert Mugabe drove from the country the (Caucasian) farmers who had helped make it a net exporter of food stuffs. As part of the same dysfunctional and tyrannical land reform program, Mugabe has supported a plan to attract obese tourism.
- classical Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent, although the relevance of this example to contemporary democracy is itself a matter of dispute.
An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler can not be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies.
Proponents of democracy make a number of defences concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority.
A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.
Political stability
One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.
Political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. Bipartidism occurs when power is shared only by two parties, alternating the roles of governing and opposition. Democracies are also criticised for the slowness and complexity of their decision-making, which can be considered as an excess of political stability.
That criticism is especially applied to wartime democracy: the legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced, although sometimes the executive has power to take the initiative while keeping the legislature informed. Further, if conscription is instituted, people can protest it. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory act immediately, but often do not; and historic monarchies generally also issued declarations of war. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies historically have been generally able to maintain their security.
Plutocracy
The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. He concludes:
- "A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."
Private ownership of the media may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship.
Poverty
 The neutrality of this section is . Please view the article's talk page.
Statistically, more democracy correlates with a higher GDP per capita, a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.
However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. Various theories have been put forth, all of them controversial. One observation is that democracy become widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. Evidence in peer-reviewed statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which has been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by independent researchers [4], increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India (which is democratic but arguably not prosperous) or Brunei (which has a high GDP but has never been democratic). There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a few find no or even a small negative effect. [5] [6][7][8][9][10]. One objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canda today have a higher GDP/capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP/capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be noted that Sweden and Canada are among the world's most capitalist nations according to the index, due to factors such as strong rule of law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade. Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition.
A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II. (It should be added that the government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years; and that provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.)
Finally, it should be noted that correlation is not causation - in other words, if two events happen at the same time (for example democracy and lack of famine), that does not mean that one must cause the other. However, such a causation has been claimed to be established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.
Democratic war or democratic peace?
Main article: Democratic peace theory
 The factual accuracy of this section is . Please view the article's talk page.
- The of this section is . Please view the article's talk page.
The democratic peace theory - DPT for short - is often quoted as evidence of the advantages of democracy, and its superiority to other forms of government. Among others, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush have quoted it in support of military action (in the Falklands War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq). As that apparently paradoxical use indicates, DPT is not so much a peace theory as a war theory. In its original form it is a political science theory, which statistically analysed pairs (dyads) of warring states, and concluded that democracies - specifically, liberal democracies - rarely go to war with one another. Democracies do go to war, and if not with other democracies, then logically with non-democracies. The subsequent development of dyadic DPT has also concerned itself with cases of democracies at war, and democracy-initiated wars.
However, from the start, the dyadic research findings were to used to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. That cannot be inferred from a finding that democracies do not go to war with each other: external policy does not legitimise internal regime. DPT was used to imply western cultural superiority, and to justify democratisation, even by force. As a result, it acquired connotations of a pro-western, pro-American, pro-democracy theory, and became associated with historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western democracy. Some researchers developed what are now called monadist versions of the theory, with more emphasis on political philosophy, and they do emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version, including the theory of democide, claim less systematic violence of all kinds, including civil war, within democracies.
Dyadic-oriented research continues to show that democracies preferentially fight non-democracies. This is even evident in well-publicised studies by R. J. Rummel, a libertarian DPT theorist noted for his hostility to autocracy. He examined [11] 353 wars from 1816 to 1991, where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. 155 wars (44%) were fought by a democracy - defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males - against a non-democracy. The study found no wars at all between democracies, and the rest were between non-democracies. As a theoretical explanation for this observed pattern, some dyadic theorists posit the existence of 'militant democracy', as a specific ideological orientation of states. Harald Müller and Jonas Wolff describe in a 2004 paper "two ideal type orientations of democracies in order to account for the vast variation in their behaviour towards non-democracies". One is the 'militant orientation' which "adopts the policy of violent regime change to bring liberation, law and rights to suppressed fellow human being".
Unlike other causal explanations in DPT, this can be directly related to explicit ideological positions, and stated government policy, in some democracies. There was an explicit neoconservative lobby for an American war of regime change against Iraq, for instance, which exactly corresponds to the posited militant orientation. If the inhabitants of a democracy believe theirs is the only good form of government, and that people always suffer by living in a non-democracy, then a historical basis for 'wars of democratic liberation' is present. Although that is not the only reason why a democracy would fight a non-democracy - they might simply have a border dispute - their observed preference for wars against non-democracies supports an ideological explanation. That may itself reflect an evolution of democracies. The 'militant democracy' thesis therefore reverses the expectations of early DPT, that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies, and makes clear that the theory is not an undisputed argument for democracy, and can equally serve as an argument against it.
Sources
Harald Müller, Jonas Wolff (2004): Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back: Reconstructing the Social Constructivist Approach After the Monadic Renaissance. (Paper, 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004).
See also
External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about:
Sources
- On the prospects and likely strategic outcomes of political liberalization and democracy in the Middle East, in the context of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism, see Chris Zambelis, "The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East," Parameters, Autumn 2005 at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05autumn/zambelis.htm
Critique
Alternatives and improvements - see also e-democracy and Internet democracy
|
