Talk:Democracy/Archive 13

Ancient Origins Claims

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single citation offered for the inclusion of the "republics of ancient India," in the "Ancient origins" section, is an unpublished paper by an associate professor, who admits he cannot read the primary sources.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)

• What has a republic, mythical or not, have to do with "democracy"? A republic is where the citizens choose a representative. A democracy (traditional) is where each citizen votes for himself (includes all genders). James thirteen (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion on historical usage of Democracy and Republic

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)

• I believe that the distinction between and oligarchy, a democracy, and a republic must be maintained. Democracy should be defined as each citizen of a governmental entity or each member of a group (includes club, corporation, association, etc) votes on every issue for himself (includes all genders). Republic should be defined as each citizen chooses a representative to vote for him (includes all genders). Oligarchy should be defined as each citizen chooses a representative from a pre-selected group to hold a government office. In any case, the various implementations of the various forms of government should not be allowed to confuse the basic issue. James thirteen (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Free and fair elections" - what's that?

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).

I do not think there is agreement regarding the exact criteria. Freedom House requires universal suffrage but this excludes some nations usually seen as liberal democracies, such as the UK and the US at the time of WWI. The Soviet Union in theory had universal suffrage and secret ballots. Some researchers have used very wide definitions and count Louis-Philippe of France as a democratic liberal regime, see the democratic peace theory.Ultramarine 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit that "free and fair" has to be made more definite - as it is, it is meaningless and misleading. If there is no widely accepted standard, then the term should be removed. --Drono 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is one common element of all definitons, as the ones given above. Do you have any opposing views? Ultramarine 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Drono. Both words are loaded images and qualify as weasel words. After all, who would oppose something that is "fair" and "free". Free and Fair elections are a common element of all definitions of the concept of Liberal democracy, but the WP-article by that name is mainly about the practical applications by countries calling themselves a liberal democracy. These countries are hardly universally defined by or accepted to have "free and fair" elections. Malc82 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The section in question describes the concept. Both of the given sources mention free and fair elections: [1][2] Whether some particular nation does have this is in practice is an entirely differen question.Ultramarine 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, thinking about this some more, probably all form of democracy would claim to be free and fair, so maybe this should be removed as redundant.Ultramarine 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the "free and fair" issue should be confined to a subset of republic. James thirteen (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The issue here is the possibility of elections that are not "free and fair" but in some way manipulated through ideological control so that citizenry is, for whatever reason, discouraged from voting "freely and fairly." Since we are talking about democracy here, and not authoritarian rule, it is not so important to come up with specific definitions and terms as it is to engage in discourse regarding what was or was not "free and fair" about a particular election. E.g. the ideological coercion of Nader voters to vote democrat as a vote against Bush was an anti-democratic approach to voting. Strategic campaigning and voting designed to manipulate voters' free choice for a particular candidate may interfere with the freedom and fairness. Although this may not be illegal to attempt to influence voting behavior in this way, it seems to be contrary to the spirit and good faith of free elections and may therefore be called "counter-democratic" behavior. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist Democracy

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)

Some anarcho-communists & non-majoritarian consensus

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)

Types of Democracy Article

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)

See the earlier extensive discussion of the 'list of types' issue in 2006. And, the List of types of democracy article. SaltyBoatr

Searching using "types" I did not find any concensus in the prior discussions. If you believe that a consensus exists, please offer it here?

The primary question offered now is: Does Wikipedia need two articles listing every form of democracy? If so, the secondary question is - why? If not, the secondary question is to either merge these articles or to transfer much of the material in this article to the List article.

Raggz 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the distinction between democratic and republic must be maintained. The articles referring to elected officials and elected representatives should be moved to the republic topic. James thirteen (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• the distinction between democracy and republic can best be explored by considering the possibility of an anti-democratic or authoritarian republic and/or another state-form where democracy is applied, such as a constitutional monarchy. In a republic, power is in the hands of the people - but that does not prevent the people from submitting to authoritarian rule. Voluntarily doing the will of a leader or leaders without relinquishing power to a central government is entirely possible. It is also possible for the people of a republic to embrace anti-democracy tactics and ideologies such as disdain for dissent, social control over cognitive behavior, etc. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Participatory Democracy" section should be added. At first I thought that the direct-democracy section covered this but it doesn't. Participatory democracy describes the democratic approach to everyday situations including work and organizations. Democratic participation in everyday life may be contrasted with authoritarian approaches where deference to social position trumps freedom of expression and voicing opinions in decision-making contexts. This form of democracy is exercised at the micro-level of individual interactions and may occur within any governmental or state context. Researchers of this type of democracy (on the ground) may look at how particular state ideologies and governmental imagery and narratives influence the level of democratic participation in everyday social situations. E.g. Elections designed to produce representatives may also have the effect of dissuading citizens from engaging in democratic discourse if they feel that it is not their job, but rather their elected representatives' job, to do so. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Binary Democracy

"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)

Agree it should be removed. Only describes a proposed modified market economy, has nothing on the political process itself.Ultramarine 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Radical democracy

"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

"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)

• "minoritarianism" only makes sense as a counter-concept of "majoritarianism." Either form is anti-democratic because domination of any of the people by others, whether they be "minoritarian" or "majoritarian," would compromise the negotiative, discursive, aspects of democratic politics. Democracy is ultimately about discussing and debating issues and ideas fairly, regardless of whether they are viewed as emanating from a minority or majority position. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

explaining my revert

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)

I have read WP:V and WP:ATT. Again you refer to a great deal of policy. Could you be more specific? It would help me understand what your specific concern is.

In this and many articles there is an objective to refer the reader to another Wikipedia page where the topic is more fully explored. This was my intent, to refer rather than to debate. Do you agree that the article has been too long, awkward, and might be improved by referrals to pages where topics are more thouroughly discussed than in this article? Do referrals to other Wikipedia pages have a specific attribution required?

Then there is the practical matter of time. After I revise the article I need to get the reference and put it in the article. If you might refrain from future reverts for say, 20 minutes, it would help this article progress. Raggz 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was already specific with you two days ago. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources (and) Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. Generally this is not found by researching websites, but instead found in books and libraries. Stick to mainstream academic books and journals to be safe. Twenty minutes? Check the history of my revert, many those were unattributed for far longer. There is no reason you cannot cite your edits using credible published material at the time you make your edit. No, editors are not obligated to refrain from reverting unattributed material immediately. The burden of evidence is on you. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. SaltyBoatr 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What did you revert based upon this criteria? It would be helpful if you could be specific enough to let me know what we are arguing about? One part of the policy you cite states "Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done." Raggz 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because you did not give attribution of your edits using 'most reliable' sources. In the future stick with 'most reliable' sources, use citations liberally and use footnotes, it will make collaboration easier. SaltyBoatr 02:42, 19 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)

I do not know which "website" we are discussing. Please advise? Raggz 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Restating myself, I am looking for your edits to be attributed to sources that meet 'most reliable' standards of WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Restating myself, I do not know which "website" we are discussing. I doubt that I cire unreliable websites, but if you won't tell me what site this could be, I can't respond. I'm tired of dancing about on this ... what web site are you complaining about? Was it the site that has an English version of the Iranian Constitution?

Thanks for the "diff" info. New to me. Raggz 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of websites lack a reliable publication process, and therefore do not qualify as a 'most reliable source', per the guidelines of [[WP:ATT]. For instance your recent usage of the website of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance appears comprised of self-published material apparently lacking a reliable publication process. Don't misunderstand me, I suspect that the people at IDEA are very nice and important people. But your sourcing of them directly from their website amounts to primary research. If you want to source their ideas, you should use a secondary source that describes their ideas. Specifically, a secondary 'most reliable' source like a book or journal published by a university, etc.. SaltyBoatr 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• citation of sources, where sources are used, is always advisable. Be careful to avoid overly orthodox approaches to knowledge development. Relying on "most reliable sources" requires aesthetic judgment and can easily be biased in favor of certain publishers over others. The whole purpose of the discussion forum for each wikipedia page is to discuss the subject matter of the entry, not just to check sources. Sources must be divulged when referenced, but discussion is the only way that errors and differences in interpretation can be dealt with. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Anti-Democratic Thought

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)

I merged the very small amount of content still left in the other article here. -- Beland 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The current part regarding 'criticism of democracy' states that 'modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, communists, fascists and monarchists'. Which is, of course, incorrect. First of all, theocratics do not present 'modern criticism of democracy' but the pre-modern one. The same with old-school monarchists, though most monarchists in the Western world are in fact some of the most staunch supporters of democracy (as in constitutional monarchy). Secondly, many communists moreover believed they presented the 'real democracy' (with a people's democracy and a vanguard party), and even some fascists sometimes had the pretense of being 'democratic'. Of course, few would now agree with this communist stance, but it is a claim that needs professional attention. Furthermore, as fascism stopped playing a serious role in politics, most modern criticism of democracy can be found among libertarians, classical-liberals, traditional conservatives and anarchists. That is from those who follow the footpath of Burke, Hayek, Tocqueville, Spooner, Thoreau etc. I will therefore make a small change to the list, giving some additions to 'theocratics, communists, fascists and monarchists'. Averroes 10:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of Poland?

Constitution of May 3, 1791

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 added mention of this constitution to History of Democracy. The claim that it was the first Constitution in Europe appears to be contradicted by that article; see, for example, Corsican Constitution. I am not a historian so I cannot evaluate whether or not either of these or the many other examples in the timeline are important enough to merit inclusion in the main democracy article. If you find that respectable historians generally think this is the case, feel free to add it in with a reference or two; there's no need to wag your finger at other editors, since you can do it yourself. -- Beland 01:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consent of the governed"

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)

To repeat the point - the lead is meant to be a broad introduction to the issue, and to summarise the details of the article that follows. To specify only the election of legislators and magistrates is to define a very narrow type of representative democracy, and nor does it accurately reflect what follows in the rest of article. Finally, please stop reverting blindly without addressig these questions on the talk page. This article is not called "How I, Drono, choose to define Democracy". --Nickhh 09:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Slogans

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)

Thanks for finally bothering to actually write something on a talk page about your amendements and reverts. Anyway the lecture continues (and in part repeats itself) - 1) elections are a key part of only one kind of democracy only, representative democracy; 2) the point of an introduction is to broadly introduce the subject, not supply a specific and partisan definition; 3) in what way is "competitive elections" any more or less of a slogan than "free and fair elections"?; 4) I don't know how people exactly will "consent" to be governed - the rest of the article attempts to look into that point, and to debate whether it's through elections or another method.

Oh, and as I've said, I haven't attempted to supply a strict definition - let alone claim it's "better" than yours. That's the whole point, I've simply tried to keep the very broad language, that was there for some time, in order to introduce the topic in the introduction, even though it wasn't perfectly phrased. But equally I can't really be bothered to enter a revert war on this article with someone who doesn't understand the basic meaning of English words. Nickhh 11:56, 15 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)

I have given plenty of reasons, which is more than you bothered to do at first. And yes I did revert your changes initially, but as I've said I'm not going to carry on and get into a futile war over it, not least because I'm bored of idiots who bully their own irrational POV into Wikipedia pages. Just for the record, I don't really have a view as to whether "competitive" is a worse description than "free and fair" (although of course a one-party state could have "competitive elections" in that their candidates compete against each other; by contrast "free and fair" fairly obviously means anyone can enter, and that each candidate, other things being equal, has a fair chance of winning). And where did I ever say that I "don't know" what "consent of the governed means"? I know exactly what it means, as I suspect do most people - the issue is what mechanism is used to best attain it.

The point, which you spectacularly keep missing and failing to address, is that democracy is not simply about elections necessarily or solely about the election of representatives, whatever adjective is attached to them. Isn't this now the third time I've had to point this out? Also, more generally, that an introduction cannot tie an article down to a specific - and contentious - definition in its first paragraph, when the rest of the introduction as well as the article itself both go on to describe several different versions. If nothing else, it makes the article read like self-contradictory nonsense Nickhh 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and here's the link to the article you are actually trying to edit, although you don't seem to have worked that out yet. Nickhh 19:48, 16 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)

Dangerous totalitarianism-leaning statements.

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 think, Rob, that you'd enjoy reading "Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti which shows that USA is not a democracy and that we are not "free." I think it should be required reading for all humans. May I add this book to the "Further Reading" section? Sundiii (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could it be that your whole approach to conceptualizing the role of elected representatives is anti-democratic? Why should we think that in a democratic republic that the elected representatives should exercise dominance at all. Should the "leader" of free people serve more of a role-model function, and only exercise dominant power where democratic republicanism is lacking or under threat? Perhaps "representative government" should itself be taken to mean a government whose discourse serves as a publicly accessible source of ideas, information, and modeling of democratic discussion. That way, the citizens may draw on governmental discussions and debates to foster democratic discourse in their everyday lives. Assuming that elected governments should be "rulers" over the citizens seems to pervert the whole idea of democracy into elected-dictatorship. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of criticism

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

That's right. --Crashtip (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

18th and 19th centuries

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)

SERIOUS POV problem!

"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)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

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)

Good points. This article was so much worse that it looks great to me. What if we just drop the frontier theory? Is there resistance to editing it as you suggest? Raggz (talk) 11:30, 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)

"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 -Thorsmitersaw

Interpreting Churchill's comments: The logic of false democracies and inconsistencies.

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)

Criticize any component

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)

Too much about specific systems, not enough on freedom and other factors

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)

Criticism

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)

One of my first 20 or so edits as a newly-registered Wikipedian was a complaint about the absence of a "criticism"-section in this article. It's sickening that now, ca. 10 months later, this important article still doesn't even try to be NPOV. It has been pointed out before, but the facts remain:

1. There is widespread criticism of the fundamental principles of democracy, this criticism applies to several or most forms of democracy.
2. Just linking to the articles about specific forms of democracy isn't NPOV. Not only does it essentially mean hiding the criticism, but these sub-articles (logically) only include criticism aimed at the specific weaknesses of that specific kind of democracy, concentrating on criticism by supporters of other types of democracy. Malc82 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). It does sound as tho careful attention to verifiability will be important in this case.
--Jerzy•t 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not that there have never been suggestions or good additions for a criticism section, it is that a handful of users have a grip on this article and keep removing any incentive to create one. Malc82 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if i had edited the article more than 3 times, for formal problems, in 2 years, i'd look back on what you've said, and say "Oh, i see your point" or "Bullshit". As it is, i have no idea what you mean, so i'm not going to try to respond to that.
--Jerzy•t 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, wait a sec: i do see it's a very busy article. And the subject matter is the sort of thing that attracts PoV warriors. I can imagine that it may be one of those subjects that is doomed to have a bad article here. Have you had any discussion with participants in the 4 WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page?
--Jerzy•t 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, I didn't check with any of the WPs. I just came by this article after months of not looking at it and was surprised to find the problem still apparent, especially since the talk page shows this is still seen as a major problem by many users. The discussion I joined in last spring was this one, another example would be this. Malc82 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was looking for some criticism and obviously expected to find it at WP, as I have for any other system..no mention of Plato? This is ridiculous, especially on such a central and important article. Alexhard (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The emptiness and lack of sources in the cricism section is ridicolous in this sort of high-quality article. I suggest we remove all the unsourced parts and empty sections. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Economist/freedom house maps

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)

The data has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies.Ultramarine (talk) 19:35, 11 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.

Nor is there a praise section. Peer-reviewed research is the most reliable sources there are.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

What npov policy? Quote please.Ultramarine (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

No. Article does not say that this is the truth. If you have another source with a different view, add it. NPOV is not an excuse for deleting povs, but for showing all views. From WP:NPOV "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."Ultramarine (talk) 12:29, 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)

Not an opinion but based on peer-reviewed research. Regardless, even if it was an opinion, that is not itself a justification for deletion. Add your own sourced POV if you disagree. I repeat: From WP:NPOV "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." NPOV does not prohibit opinions.Ultramarine (talk) 12:44, 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.

Again, WP does not exclude views and opinions, only presenting only those from one side. Add your own sourced view if disagreeing. But again, this is peer-reviewed research.Ultramarine (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

There are several other studies, like the Polity data series and Democracy index, which are mentioned in the article. If some is missing, then add it. Again, sign your comments like everyone else in WP.Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

Incorrect, DI is from the UK. There are certainly many views presented in nations with free press and freedom of expression. There is not policy declaring that articles must include "non-western" sources. But again, is some are missing, add them.Ultramarine (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Again, if there is some study missing, then add it. NPOV justifies including all views. Not deleting sourced views.Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 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)

See earlier discussion above. There is no policy that sourced material should be deleted if there is not "non-western" source in the article. If so, the quote it. The article mentions many different concepts of what democracy, see the "Forms of democracy" section. If you really insist, you could always add a map showing the Marxist-Leninist states since they claims to be the only true democracies.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please follow policy. I will add a map of the Communist states if you insist.Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

You asked for a non-western view. Done.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please quote what policies you are citing. Simply blank deletion of sourced material will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Again, state the policy where sourced material should be deleted if there is not a "non-western" source in the article. If so, then quote it. The article mentions many different concepts of what democracy, see the "Forms of democracy" section.Ultramarine (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think a view is missing, then I a sourced one. However, there is no justification is Wikipedia for blank deletion of sourced views. I quote from WP:NPOV: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".Ultramarine (talk) 09:51, 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.

Wikipedia:Stay_on_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)

Obviously material that is used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in order to rank for democracy is relevant. Again, claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion. WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." If you disagree with this POV, add your own sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Peer-reviewed studies are the most reliable material there is. If you want to dispute their relevance or empirical political science research in general, then Wikipedia is the wrong place. Simply blank deletion of material the content of which you personally disagree with is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:11, 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)

How can the most widely used rankings for democracy in research be off topic in an article about democracy? Ultramarine (talk) 10:14, 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)

Since this article is about democracy, then what rankings are used in research are obviously relevant. Should we removed what science has to say about gravity from the gravity article? Claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion. WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." If you disagree with this POV, add your own sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 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)

Again, if you want to disprove empirical political science, then Wikipedia is not the place. Publish a journal article refuting all the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and you will be instantly famous. However, do not simply delete what you personally dislike. Instead, add a sourced opposing view.Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 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)

You have not justified the removal of material used in numerous peer-reviewed articles. Your point seems to be that this is "propaganda" you personally dislike. Not a valid argument. See WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." If you disagree with this POV, add your own sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 11:19, 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)

Again your argument is that this is "propaganda". Again, NPOV does allow exclusion of material simply because it is claimed to be POV. If you want to dispute the validity of academic articles, then publish yourself. The personal opinions of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is not valid.Ultramarine (talk) 11:30, 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)

The propaganda point is the one you keep repeating. There has be no justification for deleting material used in numerous academic studies. Except that you personally reject measurements of democracy as unscientific. Since this is an unsourced personal opinon opposed by numerous academic studies, it is of little interest.Ultramarine (talk) 11:44, 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)

Sounds to me that discussion of Freedom House as a reliable source might be worthwhile having at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to use it for. FH has shown a very strong tendency to agree with the US-government, including radical re-evaluation of how democratic a country is, usually coinciding with the amount of support for US-policies said country currently showed (not surprising because there were tremendous personal links between the two organizations; likely this is still the case, but the last time I checked the FH roster was 2-3 years ago). On the other hand, FH is indeed widely used especially in American political-science journals. As questionable as I (and many other people) find it, WP:RS can only try to find the best and broadest indicators of reliability, if such a source keeps getting repeated over and over again it kind of beats the system. Maybe we can only sort it out case-by-case. Malc82 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If another alternative view to Freedom House's democracy rankings can be found I'm all for adding it to the article provided it comes from a reliable source. That does not mean that Freedom House's rankings should be removed until such alternative is found (in my opinion). --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Polity data series are used more frequently by political scientists and receive much less criticism for their bias. I would love Wikipedia to use this most standard index of democracy. But unless someone uploads shiny maps of the Polity score to Wikipedia, I believe it is better to have a more subjective illustration (Freedom House) than none. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." The are several alternative maps, like the Democracy Index. If a view is missing, then add it. One could also make a map from the Polity data, for example. Although the correlations with the FH data is very high so there would not be much difference. Regarding the argument that political science is a field "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.", that may be have been true a hundred or fifty years ago. Not today. Look in modern political science journals and you will usually find much statistics and rather complex mathematical calculations advancing empirical explanations. Not a shouting of unsupported opinions. The FH rankings are certainly not based on "Freedom of Trade". That is not even used a a criterion. Please read the methodology.Ultramarine (talk) 08:31, 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)

FH certainly attempts to measure democracy, for example by classifying as "electoral democracy" or not. Again, please read the methodology. Again, one argument seem to be that the material is POV and thus should simply be excluded. Again, that is not a valid argument. WP:NPOV states: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."Ultramarine (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am familiar with FH's methodology and wouldn't call it measuring. Their criteria very obviously fail the objectivity test, one of the key criteria for empirical studies. For example, your idea of what constitutes "undue" state influence on the economy or even seemingly clear criterions like "free and fair" elections might differ enormously from mine, so will our results. Malc82 (talk) 22:37, 23 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)

Very nice job! --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Certainly an improvement. Malc82 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop Ultramarine's rule over this page!

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)

I perfectly disagree, democracy is not an ideology and various users have apparently worked hard to keep this article free from POV contributions. What you refer to as 'opinions' above are well-known studies of democracy in various countries. Please stop POV-pushing!

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:11, 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)

Spare me the ad hominem. Use factual arguments. Remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.Ultramarine (talk) 09:55, 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/w/index.php?title=User:NuclearUmpf&oldid=89448426 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)

I was reading this topic and I just wanted to add my two cents about this.

 Democracy without criticism (internal or external) is not a Democracy!

So... writing about democracy without the criticism of democracy is contradictory! lol -- A.Cython (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

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)

Can you provide a few references to back this up? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Democracy

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)

How is what you wrote helping to improve the article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• To me the issue is simple. The democracy article should start with a simple definition such as, "A democracy is where every citizen votes on every issue." This also applies to other groups where every member votes on every issue. The newspeak definition of democracy includes elements of a republic in that there are representatives that vote for the citizen or member. I believe that the distinction should not be lost. James thirteen (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that democracy exclusively mean direct democracy. That was the view centuries ago. Today democracy includes both direct and representative democracy.[4].Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first sentence is the important statement of fact. You may look it up yourself. The rest was intended to support that statement and give my opinion as to why it should remain true. James thirteen (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave a source showing that today democracy means both direct and representational democracy.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I maintain that the definition of democracy has been changed to include the concept of the republic and that blurs the distinction between them. If you know of anyone with copies of old dictionaries, you can confirm this. James thirteen (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about current concepts. We cite current sources. Not centuries old. Or should Wikipedia be written in the Old English language?Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am aware that popular opinion is against me [5]. But I really believe that the distinction should be made clear. In a democracy I should be able to represent myself or assign my proxy to the representative of my choice. In a republic I must choose or be appointed a representative. I realize there are many implementations and variations in theory of the mix of democracy and other forms of government, but they should not be allowed to change the basic definitions. In any case, I am not going to modify the article, but you may include or ignore my comments as you wish. James thirteen (talk) 20:02, 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)

This talkpage is not for people's opinions on democracy

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).

• With all the other "soapbox" issues being displayed on this discussion page, I believe that my comments are more to the point. I have a very definite idea of what a democracy is based upon what I was taught as a child in history class. The definition change due to newspeak does not change my opinion. If you agree, you may incorporate my comments. If you do not, then you may ignore my comments. I have not made any changes to the article itself. James thirteen (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys (and girls)

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))

So, make an example, post it as a subpage, and people can go yay or nay. :) --Regebro (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins in ancient Greece?

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)

First of all, you must read the definitions of democracy and its underlined principles! Second, WP is about writing about the significant theories from notable scholars, not different points of view, WP:NPOV! Please read the references cited here and here also read the following book about the current evidence about the primitive democracies in Sumeria and India and why the scholars belive that democracy is born in Greece! Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you, and many others have gotten two issues confused. 1. The History of Democracy (where some greek city states indeed where the earliest places with some sort of majority rule (albeit only a majority of a minority). 2. The origins of democray. These are not in any way the same. Todays democracy, the democracy we are talking about, do NOT have it's origins in Greece in any reasonable sense. I think a better wording would be that the earliest known democracies were in greece. That would be a statement that is not blatantly incorrect.

And no, you have misunderstood Wikipedia as well. We should not state things that ae blatantly incorrect as an accepted matter of fact just because some scholars say so, and even less because you misunderstand what the scholars say. Anotehr acceptable wording is to point out that it is often said that democracy has it's origins in greece. --Regebro (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How, things are "blantantly incorrect" when experts of their field on top universities clearly state this? If you do have reliable sources, for improving the article, please post them! Currently, the history of democracy, is under development, if you do have ideas for improvement, again, please post them! Otherwise, if you only have an opinion then do not post! WP is not a forum! A.Cython (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Remarks about wording... all types of democracy have their differences, sure, that is why we call them with different names i.e. direct democracy or representative democracy, etc but all of them must have certain characteristics otherwise they are not democracies. Not all ancient Greek societies were about majority rule i.e. in Athens, they disliked representatives and voting because they thought that this favoured the rich, so all citizens were having equal participation into the policy decision making, again no Mob Rule (we are also right about slaves, women, since were not citizens, but the principle was there)! This was the most radical political experiment ever done in the history and shows that ancient Athens in that respect was far more democratic that any other society, modern or ancient. Modern societies still struggling to reach this point were all citizens equally participate. Sure Magna Carta is also very important and needs to be mentioned, but modern democratic societies would have never existed without Sparta and Rome for developing the modern parliment. But the principles of democracy were born in Greece, not because I say so but rather that what the current evidence say from experts in the top universities. In conclusion, we are not talking about a special version of democracy but rather the greater meaning of democracy. Sure, time goes by, things changes, new challenges arise and different old and new cultures one way or another contribute into developing the democratic systems and become more democratic on larger scales. But so far the history says that this crazy idea called democracy was born in Greece... and until new evidence arise to say otherwise, that is how things are. Enjoy Life.A.Cython (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"democratic that any other society, modern or ancient. Modern societies still struggling to reach this point were all citizens equally participate. Sure Magna Carta is also very important and needs to be mentioned, but modern democratic societies would have never existed without Sparta and Rome for developing the modern parliment." You see, that's exactly the thing. This is incorrect. Yes, democracy was "born" in greece, but the appearance of modern democracies ows nothing to them. You need to first understand that difference. Then we can discuss further.

I would like more peoples opinions heard on this, by the way, especially before I start digging through history books to find references. That takes time, namely. ;) Do YOU have any references that the nobles who forced the king to sign Magna Carta was influences by greece? ;) --Regebro (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the article on the history of democracy never blatantly claims that "Democracy has it's origins in Greece". The history of demoracy originates in greece, yes. Which is what that article sais. That's some thing else than claiing that *democracy* originated in Greece. It didn't. You need to understand that difference. I hve no troubles with the formulations in History of democacry. --Regebro (talk) 07:27, 18 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))

Both Plato and Socrates saw it as something bad, and even Aristotle used the word for something negative. ;) Was that really a positive influence? :) --Regebro (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of besides the point. Classical culture was hugely influential in Europe when democracy started to seed. Classical texts were almost the only "secular" ones that were allowed to be printed. When everything non-Catholic was heresay, you were allowed to read a book like Herodotus about Zeus diddling with queens and such. The impressionist movement in the nineteenth century was a reaction against the art world's then obsession of only producing classically themed art. At that time, if you constructed an arguement, the main sources you would appeal to would be the Bible and classical texts. If you could cite Plato, it added alot of weight to your arguement. Although the Greeks (and Romans) were not necessarily very enlightened, it was the influence of their texts that led to enlightenment thinking. It almost isn't a paradox that philosophical criticisms of demagogues and such ended up leading to the popularity of the idea of democracy. The greek context is relevant because the Europe and America that produced democracy was obsessed with the culture of antiquity. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

So you are saying that because the philosophers in question was negative to democracy, and wildly influential, this benefited the rise of western democracy? Oookaaay... :) --Regebro (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As Pez Dispens3r said there many critics of democracy and the person who "killed" the ancient democracy was Plato. Both Plato and Aristotle were impressed by the political stibility of the not so democratic Sparta and once Socrates died from the democratic Athens, Plato took the initiative and lanched a massive attack on democracy! Aristotle and Plato deeply influenced Europe later. Their arguments were used again and again against anyone who had some democratic ideas. It was only after 1850 that the democracy of Athens was started cosidered in a good manner. Before that Sparta and Rome were the good examples as systems of rule. I have already posted many sources in the discussion at the history of democracy, but here is a great source: John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC - 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994 A.Cython (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the point I was making. --Regebro (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

oh... sorry if i reapeted what you said :( A.Cython (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. I have confused you with Pez Dispens3r... lol A.Cython (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to excuse yourself. I just had the impression that you didn't agree with what said. Based on the fact that you argued against it earlier. :-) --Regebro (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Checks and Balances Paragraph

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))

He linked to EB's article about Democracy, at least the first time he added the sentence. However, that article did not support the claim. Much of the sentence as added was taken directly from EB (another reason to delete it) but the claim that democracy without chekcs and balances would easily deteriorate was unsupported. Neither does the article about the value of democracy support anything like that. The third reference was to Noam Chomsky, a linquist, who's political texts are without any significant value. I deleted the sentence again, until somebody can come up woth some sort of support for the claim, some explanation of what "checks and balances" mean in this context, and a formulation where a large part of the sentence isn't copied verbatim from Encyclopedia Britannica. --Regebro (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, maybe, Britannica is not perfect. As for the book well that is one of its subject, i.e. the illusion of having democracy when you do not have! Now, at the artcle of the britanica does mention the dangers of democracy!

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)?

If you know from political theory you know that you need to control with a transparent way which subset of the population will have the power. For example if this power remain constantly to the same small subgroup the you do not have democracy!

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.

That was a quotation from the second article from Britannica that ring the bells the dangers against democracy... but of course Britannica is not be trusted...

well in that case what about a book of political theory? check here.

Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas "Handbook of Political Theory"... Some points made in the text I quote them here:

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...

Do you want more sources to directly state this?A.Cython (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"As for the book well that is one of its subject, i.e. the illusion of having democracy when you do not have!" All of Chomskys political texts is about the illusion of him having arguments when he doesn't. You should stop reading Chomsky when it comes to politics it's not good for you.

None of the quotes you take up support the statement you made. They take up problems of democracy (not "dangers" as you want to call them), but none of them support the statement that democracy "if not restricted by a special system of check and balances ... can easily deteriorate and ceases to be a democracy". If you have sources that state this, bring them forward. But I don't think you have as you now have quoted at least five sources, at least two of them antidemocratic, and none of them support your statement. You seem to draw your own conclusions from the sources, and you can't do that on Wikipedia. Wasn't it you who talked about significant theories from notable scholars? Why, it was! :-) --Regebro (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... i do not think that I draw my own conclusions (or at least that is what i still think) but it is ok, chomsky is out, britannica is out the handbook of political sciences is also out... ok last try and then I shut up, so here are some more sources:

• The Judge in a Democracy By Aharon Barak

In the absence of check and balances, a branch is likely to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself.

• USinfo this is the official explanation from the US democracy

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.

• Separation_of_powers From wikipedia itself

Proponents of separation of powers believe that it protects democracy and forestalls tyranny.

• Handbook of Developmental Policy Studies By Gedeon M. Mudacumura, Shamsul M. Hague

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".

• Problems in American Democracy By Thames Ross Williamson

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 last source in order to make my point Democracy, Equality, and Justice: John Adams, Adam Smith, and Political Economy By John E. Hill

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.

Finally, i think the statement in dispute is needed since it is the only sentence that can provide some insight (if later explained in details) the quotes at the end of the article such as:

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.

I still think that I do not draw my own conclusions, unless of course I am mistaken and the following is true: a continuous abuse and accumulation of power is part of a democracy and do not lead to an oligarchy or an tyranny or an aristocracy or whatever else! Please tell me, if I am still plain wrong! A.Cython (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And please I mean no offense or trouble, here in WP, on the contrary if this (discussion) is needed to increase the quality of WP then by all means, I am not perfect you know! ;) A.Cython (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your new quotes doesn't support your claim either. One comes close though: "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"." However, you claim was not that it would deteriorate into the tyrrany of the majority but into dictatorship or oligarchy. So, sorry, you have not been able to find any sources that actually support what you said, despite evidently doing some major googling on the subject. :) I think you just have to accept that there isn't any major support for this theory of yours. And as you have pointed out, opinions have no place here. But since you asked on my opinion: Yes, I think you are wrong. I do not think democracy deteriorates into oligarchy or dictatorship without "checks and balances". I even find the claim about the tyrrany of the masses doubtful. One reason for this is that all checks and balances necessarily has to be under democratic control as well, 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. And neither are you correct about your ideas of constant abuse and accumulation of power. That seems also a bit similar to the Marxist ideas of accumulation of capital. You have already been duped by Chomsky, you haven't read Marx as well, have you? ;-) --Regebro (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ok I will not bring more sources, but all these sources do (or at least I think they do) show that in a democracy all checks and balances are necessary in order to have a "democratic control", thus the constitution must limit the power say the (evil/ignorant) politicians for creating a law e.g. forbids people to democratically control these checks and balances! No this is not a theory of mine, unless all these authors are part of a conspiracy theory and its leader is me. I am sorry I do not see your opinion. I have showed works from books (yes some them I found with googling but others I have read them, I do want transparency) that do claim the need of some sort of checks or balances in order to maintain democracy and not let it deteriorate, where are your sources to say otherwise? Because you just said "I do not think democracy deteriorates into oligarchy or dictatorship without "checks and balances"", is that POV? Also, you said:

so how would they then be able to stop this if this is what the people wants? Answer: They can't.

If the politicians in power change the law (as I said above), so that the people not to have the authority to check them then the people will be illegal, if they desire to check the politicians! Who will check the politicians? The answer is the constitution with check and balances (e.g. separation of powers), i.e. a person can go to court and the people/judge can determine is the new non-democratic law is constitutional or not. But hey, in order to do that you need checks and balances (e.g. separation of powers)! Please read the books I mentioned above. Before I post them I also read them!

In a democracy, only the people can keep the democracy democratic.

How the people will keep it democratic? Will they not check the government actions? And if the government is out of order, how will undo the mistakes the government's actions? You need checks to maintain control from the people! As for Chomsky and Marx, just because I read their arguments it does not mean that I agree with them! Finally, what is needed to make my point, find a book and copy paste the exact sentence? I will place the sentence back unless someone bring sources that says the opposite!A.Cython (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The people who vote are not "checks and balances". What is needed to make your point is sources and arguments, and you have none. Give up, man. I don't understand what your point is.

"where are your sources to say otherwise? ". No, YOU have to bring sources that support YOUR case. You haven't.

"If the politicians in power change the law (as I said above), so that the people not to have the authority to check them then the people will be illegal, if they desire to check the politicians! Who will check the politicians?" If the politicians start undoing the dmeocracy, the people can vote the politicians out of office and vote in democrats. If they can't, then it's not a democracy. Not the absense of any checks and balances except the people and the democracy.

"How the people will keep it democratic?" Voting. That's what democracy is for, --Regebro (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Cython, well done in finding betting sources and referencing them in a more scholarly manner than just pointing at a book. There are still a few problems, however. Firstly, 'checks and balances' is a cliche that is overused in high school textbooks and is problematic becuase it is undefined. The seperation of powers is important, as are many other things. And note that the seperation of state and federal powers is NOT necessary for a democracy (as one of your sources claims), and is rather a UScentric view. The problem is that saying "checks and balances" is just a way of glossing over what these things are. 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 agruably, 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). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)) P.S. you don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate Marx.

Ad Pez Dispen3r sais, the sentence does not ft in the entrance. Also, the sources you had before that argue for checks and balances do NOT support that the democracy becomes an oligarchy, if there aren't any, so you can't claim that. You give me the feeling that you have some sort of undisclosed reason for wanting to add this paragraph even though you don't have any support for it. I think you should state that case instead of trying to come with underhanded edits that make little sense. --Regebro (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he has an undisclosed reason for the paragraph. Try not to make unfair accusations. Attack the credibility of the paragraph but don't accuse the editor. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Dear, Pez Dispens3r and Regebro, you say

Firstly, 'checks and balances' is a cliche that is overused in high school textbooks and is problematic becuase it is undefined.

I could accept your criticism if I had presented sources like this one, but no I have used books which belong to academic level, and they do define what they mean by check and balance, please read the sources, they do not bite.

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.

well that is not quite true, separation of powers is part of all modern democracies, it just happens that the US to be the first modern democracy, and they are proud of this. The idea of separation of powers is an older idea. Also, it is presented as an example of a check and balance for democracy not to deteriorate, and it is a good example since it used in most modern democracies. Sure there is some criticism, but there is criticism everywhere about anything, e.g. your criticism about democracy starting with Magda Carta and not in antiquity. As I said, it is a good example, but if you have a better one then post it.

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.

First, the last few days I was trying to place some order into the introduction (check the history page), it is still a mess, but it will be improved. Second, if I was struck in antiquity then could you please explain me why so many scholars of history and political sciences are obsessed with starting or using antiquity? check the following sources:

• "Public Space and Democracy" By Marcel Hénaff, Tracy B. Strong

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8UNrZPF9IOsC

• "Twenty-first Century Democracy" By Philip Resnick, Published 1997 McGill-Queen's Press MQUP

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sMEfMRYpubUC

I can bring many more sources... I just present two

also you may need to read this book (the intro + 1st chapter), where it explains why scholars study the past for solving the problems of today

• "First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea" By Paul Woodruff, Oxford University Press US

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZqX7dCmuKyoC

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).

Dictatorships are dictatorships not democracies. Democracy is the political system which has faced most criticism from philosophers and others over the centuries. As Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government...", why? The academic answer is that it constantly needs to be checked by the people in order not to deteriorate. Democracy compared to other system of rules (short-term), is the most unstable one, this is a characteristic unique only to democracy. This is an important reason for the sentence to be in the introduction. As for the sources, well all I can say is: I thank you for forcing me to find better sources that plainly state the content of the sentence.A.Cython (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not necessary to quote me in the immediate reply: I remember what I wrote and its making the discussion page unnecessarily long. Now, you still have the word "oligarchy", yet NONE of your decent sources use that word. They use thw words anarchy, tyranny, tyranny of the majority and despotism. My accusation about being stuck in antiquity was in regards to the use of the word "oligarchy". In classical Greece, there were polis' that went from democracy to oligarchy or aristocracy. This is not the case for modern states. The word "oligarchy" needs to go. Flat out. Per your own supplied sources. I still maintain "checks and balances" is a cliche, but I'll let that one go for the time being. As for my comment on seperation of powers, if you look closer what I was saying was the seperation of federal powers and state powers, which means decentralisation. There are many highly centralised democracies: I was not arguing that the seperation of legislature, judiciary and executive branches is not a common feature of democracies. Although I will admit my sentence was a little unclear. Nevertheless, Hill argued that is was necessary to have "federal division between the state and the national governments." This is not universally true of democracies. Hence US-centric (what i'm getting at here is that apart from the seperation of the aforementioned branches of power, there is little to be said for other checks and balances. Perhaps what I'm saying is the sentence would be more truthful if it used the term 'the check/balance of seperation of powers'). Although, to go deeper, more important balances are the freedom of the press and universal suffrage, which mean that if a president gets a little too despotic, the press can complain and the people can vote him/her out. In this sense a democracy is a negative feedback system that corrects itself. Again: this needs to be mentioned, but it may not fit in the intro. And my comments about dictatorships and democracies are valid: both are systems of government, and a dictatorship arguably requires more effort and checks and balances than a democracy does. Of course, tounge was firmly in cheek when I refered to dictatorships failing and becoming democratic. Nevertheless, the fact that a democracy can turn into something else is not a point that deserves to be made before it is made clear what a democracy actually is. And your point about democracy being "most critised" is really irrelavant (and arguably wrong. Democracy is now held up as the standard to achieve. The Economist's Index of Democracies claimed in 2007 the world owned 28 full democracies. Yet all bar 4 countries in the world claim to be democratic.) Yes, the Churchill quote is very witty, but I fail to see why you keep digging it up in context of this discussion.

Rest assured my intention is not to demean your efforts to improve this article and when I say this paragraph is innapropriate for the introduction I do not mean your other efforts are (necessarily) to the detriment of the article. You are not a vandal but an editor, and in that sense we are on the same page: getting this article to feature status, which it is well behind in. But as it stands, there are bits that have to go from the intro (i'll be setting my sights on other bits soon). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

"Dictatorships are dictatorships not democracies." And democracies are democracies, not dictatorships.

"Democracy is the political system which has faced most criticism from philosophers and others over the centuries." That is without a doubt a totally incorrect statement. Perhaps the greatest volume of critical texts, but that is nt the same things as "most criticism", which implies that other forms of goverment are generally preferred.

"As Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government...", why?" Because he was being funny in a deep way. There is absolutely no way you can in any set of circumstances interpret that quote as support for your claim. And in fact, you still have provided no support for the statement, and I will have to repeat PezDispens3rs request that you remove the sentence until you have such support. He has explained why very well. --Regebro (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the quotations it is a bad habit of mine... Let see if we can make some progress here:

• you say oligarchy is a bad term, ok... even though I have seen it in modern books about political science. But there is no point bringing more sources. I will change it to despotism and anarchy. Better?
• check and balances, and separation of powers... ok now i get your point. but still it is only presented as an example. can you recommend a second example which is related to centralized democracies? note Germany has a similar system with US, it is not unique to US. Finally, even in the criticism of separation of powers (decentralized or not), all scholars agree that some sort of system of check and balances is needed for democracy.
• also the last two days I was thinking how to join this sentence with the following:
  • 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
• In the article of dictatorship is needed to say that those with power need the support of the military, without it they will lose power. As for the democracy, when we try define it as a system of rule by the people for the people, the first question that arises is "by which people for which people?", it is not clear, and therefore it needs clarification at the introduction. Explain how some people can rule other people, but we still have a democracy.
• Finally this discussion reminds me a quote from a movie I saw with Robin Williams, "The politicians are like diapers, you need to change them frequently, but for the same reason." A.Cython (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the change to despotism and anarchy is not better. Now it claims that without checks and balances, a branch may accumulate power and that this can lead to despotism, something you do NOT have support for in your quotes, or anarchism, which is absurd. Anarchism is the LACK of central power. 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?

The problem here is not only that you are incorrect, which you are, even worse, you can't find any notable support for your incorrectness. You need to remove it, or at least stop re-adding it. --Regebro (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

**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

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. So, your statement is not only unsupported, but POV. Iäme removing it now, it has nothing to do in this article. --Regebro (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not make things make things worse, here. I am trying to improve the article and you destroy the process!

I will put the sentence with the oligarchy and its references back and if anyone removes it without good reason i.e. display reliable sources then I will contact the administrators! I changed it to anarchy and despotism only because Pez Dispens3r mentioned that he disagrees with the word oligarchy... even though I do not understand why!

• Oligarchy IS is term used in political sciences to describe forms of government by the few, which can include aristocracy, despotism etc etc
• Anarchy is a system of rule without government, but also means chaos, a system of rule governed by the passion of the people aka Mob rule in its worst kind! As it was mentioned in one of the references! But obviously you haven't bothered to mention it!

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.

• Do not remove staff especially staff with references, unless you have read the references or at least make at least one attempt to understand them!
• You haven't presented a single source to say otherwise! You only attack my references with arguments by displaying your knowledge on the subject! I you think it is wrong then post sources!
• I am not pushing my opinion, these are hard-core of political sciences, if you do not know then do not post your opinions here!
• E.g. voting can be non-democratic, if the representative candidates are drawn only from a small part of the population! So how this makes voting a democratic element? It is not, face it! Sure in modern democracies we use it, but what makes it democratic are the principles i.e. everybody have equal access etc etc! That is what I am saying!
• All things I stating are part of the sources I am presenting, if you have a problem but with no sources to present then you have every right to keep your problem to yourself. Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

@Regebro It does not matter what type of democracy you have or what type of special system of check and balances you use, if you do not use democratic principles then you do not have democracy! Face it! What, you are saying, it does not even make sense!

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?

First this doubtful statement comes from an expert and the book is published form the Princeton University Press, I think I will stick with the expert's statement rather than your POV, which is not supported with any reliable sources. The third reference that you deleted along with the sentence was a work analyzing how the Republic of Germany deteriorated due to the lack of checks and balances before the WWII. I told you before to read the references, if you still disagree please post sources!

Yes these things are democratic elements. They do not, by themselves, guarantee democracy.

Yes, what? elections is a democratic element with or without checks and balances?

The elections must be fair and open, the majority must be a real majority, not a majority of the minority, etc.

Must be open and fair? That is not always the case. Elections can be close as well. Voting for your king based on candidates chosen only from the members of the royal family, which is clearly not a democratic process. And honestly, what are you saying? what is real majority and what do you mean by majority of the minority?

That is, in short, to be a democracy in practice, the democracy must be a so called Liberal democracy.

Again, how Liberal democracy is related here? I was talking about any type of democracy needs a special system of checks and balances.

But claiming that this is the only real democracy is a POV, which is why the article does not claim that.

First I never claimed that liberal democracy is the only real democracy! Second, any type/variety of democracy has some common principles! Otherwise we would have placed them in the same category! I have already written the second paragraph of this article. Is that also POV? And here is where the checks and balances come into play, they are there to make sure that these principles not get abused in any type of democracy! Which part is that you do not understand?

Finally do not insult me directly with statements like:

I think I was correct in you have an unstated goal, namely getting in some sort of opinion on what "real" democracies are.

Especially, when you haven't presented a single source to support any of your claims! A.Cython (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to improve the article, but your changes are not improvements, and the reason is threefold:

1. They are POV. Look, I *support* your POV. Yes, some types of democracies are mor democratic than others, I agree. But that is a POINT OF VIEW. I don't think Cuba is a democracy just because they have election. But there are people who are of the opinion that Cuba *is* democraic, and in fact many are of the opinion that it is *more* democratic than the liberal democracies of the west. You and me may think these people are crazy or misinformed, but that doesn't make any difference. It is still POV, and we can't just write things like that in Wikipedia.

2. They are not supported. Yes, it is still *YOU* have to present sources for what *YOU* say. It is not me that have to provide sources saying you are wrong. I can explain to you why some other time if you want, maybe on personal talk pages or so. For now you just will have to accept that this is how Wikipedia works.

3. They don't fit in that section. If you are going to discuss different types of democracy that should not be done in the intro of the article.

All these arguments have been repeated over and over, but you just completely ignore it. It's time you take this to heart instead. Try to be reasonable here.

"First I never claimed that liberal democracy is the only real democracy" Yes you did. When you do claim that some types of democracy are more democratic than others and that you need certain things in addition to majority rule and election for a democracy to be democratic, that is exactly what you say, because when you add the things that are needed, what you like to call "checks and balances" you have a liberal democracy. But you see that is still POV, and you can't add it to the article.

"Finally do not insult me directly with statements like:" How is that an insult? It is evidently completely correct. You did yourself to the article add the statement that soome types of democracies were more democratic than others. And you even did it *after* I supposedly "insulted" you! I was correct, wasn't I? Don't try to insult my intelligence. I was correct. Your purpose with the changes was to claim that some types of democracies are better than others. You can't do that. Stop it. --Regebro (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion very interesting, but I would like to say a couple of things for the future. Do not get me wrong here, but Regebro you must realize that everybody have their POV, you, me, or even the notable sholars that Cython was posting. So... at the bottom line, who is more objective? Which POV should stay in the wikipedia? No offence, but I will place my money on Cython, because he/she spent time to gather these sources i.e. a collections of different POVs, and tried to make a story out of it. On the other hand, his/her his or her choice of expressions, which were more like a mixture of different sentences from different sources, were not the best, but still it was a good effort. One the other hand Regebro, even in the case were you are right, you simple deleted things (which is ok if they are wrong) based only on your POV. This is wrong and unproductive. Your obsession in keeping everything NPOV at the end is making you POV. That being said, I also want to mention that the majority rule is not characteristic of all democracies. In a direct democracy there is no majority or minority therefore no rule of majority. Unfortunately, I do not have the time like Cython to dig up some of them, but I do hope someone will correct this, with the avalable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.218.131 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I only add this for the people not get confused.

• For the definition of POV, check this link WP:NPOV
• For the definition of reliable sources, check this link WP:RS

It is good for the people to know the definitions. A.Cython (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

After PezDispens3rs edits

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)

I hardly think a supporter or Singapore would use the paragraph to say Singapore is democratic. The paragraph states freedom of the press as important, for one thing. It's really besides the point whether a source is online or not. As long as it is referenced properly and can be found, it doesn't matter a damn whether you have to visit an actual library to read it. As for representative democracy, in the context of notability it IS this article. It is what people mean, more times than not, when they say 'democracy.' (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

I think now after the improvements of mine and of Pez Dispens3r the paragraph looks much better. There is still one more paragraph in the introduction that is still a little messy... but I do not have the strength now. A.Cython (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why democracy?

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)

There is NO reason not to suppose that a non-elected philantropist COULD be as good as, or better than, a democratically elected leader. However, a democratically elected leader is accountable to the people and hence is more LIKELY to care about the people. Here: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf , is a good place to do some initial reading. You can compare the full democracies with the authoritarian regimes and decide for yourself which is more likely to produce responsible government. And if, in the course of your research, you find an important point that needs to be added to the article, feel free to contribute. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Hm... yes, I believe that your points are true, to some extent. I am not trying to argue here, I'm exploring. I think that the problem with democratically elected leaders is that they are very likely to care about themselves (and only "act as if" they are caring for the people) since they have much to gain (in contrast to an autocratic leader who can get whatever (s)he wants). Furthermore, elected leaders are not really accountable... I mean, George Bush has nothing to lose now - his only goal now should be to make the most for himself while he remains the president. Thank you for the link, I shall read it and think about it.

Tom 193.2.86.3 (talk) 09:12, 20 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)

Well, actually, as far as I know Mugabe was doing just great until recently when he became ultra nationalistic and evicted all the foreign landowners (which was clearly a deep misunderstanding of national economy and economy in general). I'm assuming a smart leader with extensive knowledge of economics, philosophy, etc. Thanks for the links!

Tom 193.2.86.3 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a leader does not exist. All people are only human. There exists no super-human that knows how to run your life better than you. From that insight, democracy and liberalism is unavoidable. If elected leaders care only about themselves, they get voted out, which means that to be able to care for themselves, they have to follow the will of the people. Unelected leaders can't be voted out, and hence can care only for themselves. Your claim that Bush can't be helt accountable are simply incorrect. --Regebro (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe was a nasty piece of work since he came to power at the start of the 80s. He didn't like his political oppenent, and so he systematically starved the guy's supporters on the pretense that they were "gathering weapons." He did this with an extra arm of the army he'd been slowly building in secret that answered directly to him. But the existence of bad dictators doesn't exclude the possibility of good ones: I'm just pressing myself to think of examples. Augustus is the best I can think of, but he's not exactly contemporary. It's arguable that Cuba is better off with Castro than it would have been without him, and before his quest for world domination Hitler brought Germany out of a massive rut. Even so, they don't have the best track record... (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Article Structure

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))

Sounds like a great idea. We don't have to go very deep into the different parts either, as most of these have their own articles. --Regebro (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good plan, but a piece of advice please add sources. The reason I am saying this is that people like me are not experts and we greatly appreciate, when a WP article leads to good/reliable sources for more details.A.Cython (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all about civilization

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 Pursos14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a belly button. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Other Uses: Democratic Party

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)

Criticism of democracy

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)

You are so right! There used to be a section if I recall correctly, but attempts to restore it have proved unfruitful. After all, Wikipedia is a "Democracy", which means a lot of things. Please add the section. Danielsavoiu (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i think u meant wikipedia is NOT a democracy? but yes, agreed, we need a section on this. democracy, while has seen an increase in usage, is NOT the silver bullet. there are many areas where we do not use democracy in decision making. the military and corporate governance are major and practical examples. Shaoquan (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Enlightenment

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.

-- 83.236.68.243 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Universal Suffrage and Rights? I don't think so...

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)

It might have been considered a democracy then, especially since few countries that were more democratic existed at this point. However, it is generally not seen as a democracy with modern standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I still take umbrage at that phrasing *NOW*

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.

People in jail don't get to vote in many states in the US. Released felons don't automatically get their suffrage back in all states of the Union, either.

What's a 'universally recognized freedom'? And some people in the US have more liberties than others, notably police and judicial members - who can exempt themselves out of public records, who have less legal liability and legal protections enshrined in law.

And we can also talk about minors, mentally challenged, and other people. Like the homeless (you're required to have an address to get an ID card/DL, you can't vote without one...)... of course while some homeless haven't been convicted of crimes, since they have no place to legally stay, they're just felons-in-waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

~ender 2008-11-29 13:06:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

I agree. The word democracy is used to describe many extant political systems, and many historical systems. In none of these do "all members of the society have equal access to power" (for example there is no suffrage for minors). There is only one supporting citation online (Aristotle). He is talking about "citizens" when he uses the word "all". Exactly what Aristotle thought a "citizten" was, is not clear. It may well be (indeed given his cultural upbringing) that it would not include women for example. The Greek democracies, for example, allowed all citizens to vote - but very few people were classed as citizens. Therefore it can not be used as a supporting citation. Thehalfone (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add this. Even though the word democracy is used to describe many political systems, which can be very different, at the end of the day you have to ask what are principles that characterize the democratic part. And I say part because most democracies of today have mixed elements (an advice given by Aristotle). Aristotle's way of categorizing the different systems of rule was on the distribution of power. In the ideal case you would have: when the power is concentrated into one person then its monarchy, to few people oligarchy and to all (or many if you prefer) democracy. Fortunately or unfortunately all ideal cases have been tried and failed. The ideal democracy is failing beyond the boundaries of city. Anyway... back to the point in ancient Greece, political vote was linked whether you have the ability to fight... that excluded women because they could not fight in the hoplite's heavy armor (even though it was counterbalanced with positions of religious authority) and the slaves/foreigners because they did not fight for their city. The perspective of citizenship since then has changed, but what has not changed is that a democratic principle/characteristic that all citizens have access equally to power. This statement reflects other principles that shaped democracy such as isonomia (== equality), isegoria (== freedom of speech), or freedom either positive freedom (e.g. Athenian model where each citizen can by initiative use his/her power to govern) or negative freedom (e.g. Plato's suggestion used by modern democracies where everyone has equal potential of having power). Overall, what I wanted to say this article should be more about the fundamental principles of democracy that binds of different democracies rather than a dull list of democracies existed (or still exist) in the history.A.Cython (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Democracy in Sumeria

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)

Somehow people change it all the time. The origin of democracy was in Greece, not in India, not in Mesopotamia. However, I am not saying there was no society before the Greek ones that might had a democratic system of rule. It might. But there are no what so ever evidence that these societies survived or flourished as democratic societies long enough so that to influence people in later generations/periods.

I wrote the first sections in History of democracy from cavemen to Athens, including with what it is regarded alternative theories i.e. Mesopotamia and India (most literature papers/book are there as well). The summary is that there were some democratic elements but no concrete conclusions. That is there are a few individual works in the literature but they are not accepted by the majority of scholars. In the case of Sumeria even the author of Mesopotamia democracy admitted that based on the current evidence there is no way to distinguish it from a primitive oligarchy! In other words, this is interesting but it cannot be considered an origin of democracy.

Finally, I would like to use the following quote since it illustrates what is the consensus among the scholars concerning the origins of democracy (from here (pages 17-25)):

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."

Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin and origin. The first recorded democracy, albeit in limitied form, was in Greece. Calling it "origin" ignores all other places that have had similar structures. Modern democracy started in England, and that start wasn't inspired by Greece at all. So it's a bit of a fuzzy statement that it "originated" in Greece. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English democracy goes back to Rome and from Rome goes back to Athens and Sparta... and stops there... Sorry... A.Cython (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English democratic history can be traced back to Magna Carta. I'm not aware of any connection between Magna Carta and Rome. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true... but Magna Carta is not a political system. Magna Carta was the first step for an (absolute) monarch to give some basic civil rights to the people; a great first step towards to democracy, but itself it is not an origin of democracy. Many more things had to be changed for England to become a democracy, in fact it was only after 1830 (six centuries after Magna Carta) one can say Britain entered into Democracy. Now what Rome had offered..? An evolved concept of representation (compare with the representation of Sparta) i.e. bicameral congress "House of Lords" & "House of Commons". Oh... and don't forget Plato whose arguments against direct democracy (Athenian democracy) were repeated by the educated elite over the centuries a thousand times per day... ok I exaggerate but you get the point e.g. Rousseau (an important figure behind the French Revolution) when he was speaking about democracy he was clearly pro-Sparta rather than a democracy in the Athenian style (no election, but with lotteries). So... overall modern democracies own much to both ancient Greco-Roman system of rule but also to medieval Magna Carta, Venice, and modern etc etc... However, within this line there is no contribution from Sumeria or India (even if they were since there are no concrete evidence to support this). A.Cython (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Magna Carta was the start of the process that ended up in democracy, so it was *an* origin of democracy, that's for sure. I agree with wasn't *the* origin of democracy. Neither was greece, though, but it might have been the origin of democratic thought. We agree about sumer, that's sure. I'd like to modify the statement that Greece was the origin of democracy to the origin of democratic thought, or philosophy or ideals, or somesuch. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a criticism section

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)

Some thoughts

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)

In general I agree with most points you make. Part of the problem is deeper than you think... Democracy did not acquire a bad name just from Thucydides but also from Plato (and his student Aristotle), whose writings shaped the whole western philosophy. Plato disliked the Athenian system of rule because it put to sentence his teacher Socrates. It was only till mid 19th century were people actually started looking the Athenian model outside the Plato's propaganda. Note that I said started, still even today many look it very suspiciously. Before then, democracy meant either a mob rule or representation that of Sparta, which was highly praised by Plato, Thucydides and many others i.e. Rousseau. Aristotle argued that the best system would one that had elements of all three systems of rule, namely monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. The US system is such an example: president reflects the good quantities of a monarch, the senate reflects the good qualities of oligarchy and elections + minor participation in the courts reflect the democratic elements. Today we call such systems of rule, democracies (very different and very little in common with the Athenian model). It is slightly funny when you learn that the House of Representatives has the great lawgivers such as Lycurgus (lawgiver of Sparta) and Solon (creating a timocratic system of rule in Athens) but not Cleisthenes, the guy who actually created democracy. Now about Rome: Rome was not democracy not because of its representation but because not anyone could became a senator unless you were very wealthy and had big land in your name. There is a name for this, aristocracy. The majority in Rome had no say what so ever. Also, be wary of a congress/senate with a single mind. Anyway, today (due to Plato's advice of avoiding the Athenian model) we draw heavy influence from Sparta and Rome's system of rule. Thus even though Rome was not a democracy we still need to mention this. A.Cython (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman senators were wealthy because campaign expenses generally had to be paid for by the candidate. Legally, the senate was an advisory body and law was enacted by the plebian (commoner) assembly. The tribunes were elected exclusively by the plebs and the plebs also had most of the voting rights with respect to electing a consul. Kauffner (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As you said any individuals who can afford expenses for the campaign were able to become senators. You already excluded the majority of the population from one source of power. The Roman Senate had less power in the early period of the republic. In the mid-period was definitely more powerful. However, note that through out the whole period the senate essentially played the central role and character in the quest for power. The people were only the pawns in this struggle, since their representatives could easily bribed. Rome's system of rule was based on elections, which favors the few, those with money (and/or military power or fame).

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)

Rome's motto was SPQR -- the senate and the people of Rome. In other words, their ideal was aristocracy and democracy in partnership. So, yes, Rome was not a democracy. But it was not an aristocracy either. That Roman senators were wealthy tells us nothing about the Roman system of government. U.S. senators are notoriously wealthy as well. Cicero wrote a letter which contains advise about how to campaign for office in rural areas, so even aristocratic office-seekers had to cater to the common man. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The roman senators were the richest guys in town. The US senators are rich but not the richest. The richest are CEOs of big companies. There is a small difference, and that is between when in theory the rich dominate in the senate and when in theory everyone can fulfill their potential but in practice the nature of the institutions are biased towards the rich people as senators. Correct me if I am wrong but Obama and Biden started from middle class not rich... they became rich... right?

Anyway... I think we are on the same side... my bottom line is:

• Rome was a republic not a democracy... but
• Rome had democratic elements in its system of rule. Definitely.
• Rome's system of rule was used as a model for the design of today's democracies. Yes!
• Modern democracies have elements from different ideal systems of rule, thus not completely democratic. Yes! (see in my previous comments)
• Elections is not a democratic process, simply because it favors the rich and famous. This is ancient Athenians' opinion and mine... unfortunately it is highly debatable. But no point to discuss it here and now...

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)

The introduction to this article is not really about democracy

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)

I am little puzzled about what means "a historical and world-wide perspective"... If we want to be 100% strict to what democracy means then should only write about the ancient Athenian democracy in which despite slaves and women denied political vote still the Athenian model has even today the most well distributed political power among its citizens. Just answer the following question for any other society: What is the fraction of people that within their lifetime would serve in a public office. In Athens it's ~10% of the total population (including women and slaves) and 100% of its (male Athenians) citizens. No other society in history comes even close to this; all other societies look like oligarchies or republics at best. We are here only because we still struggle to answer Plato's questions and thus to form the ideal society. It is only a matter of convenience that modern societies took Plato's advice about negative freedom (== all have equal potential to have power or serve in office, which is in contrast to positive freedom where all can have power of serve in office by simply participating) and use Sparta and Rome's systems of rule as models for their own societies. Both Sparta and Rome were not democracies and yet we use their system of rule. It's because the modern meaning of democracy is composed by elements of monarchy (i.e. president or head of state), oligarchy (parliament or senate) and democracy (elections, rotation in office, etc). So the paragraph describing as you say a certain view point of democracy essentially describes the current meaning and the most popular version of what democracy means. It would be confusing instead to describe how the Athenians view their society (or even the communist viewpoint) to the reader. I would have to disagree the removal of this paragraph but I am open to any meaningful improvements. Any to suggest?

About Fareed Zakaria, personally, I do not like it either, because I disagree that Athens was illiberal democracy. I read the section in the reference and did not provide any argumentation, only repeating an old stereotypical perspective, which has proven wrong by recent scholars. In the "Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece" written by some of the best political authors clearly shows that the Athenian society had freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, thus it is difficult to label it illiberal. In fact Plato accused the Athenians for grating so much power to the assembly. The only reason to label the Athenian model as illiberal is due to lack of gender equality or universal equality. But that would be wrong to accuse them for that since they had a complete different perspective e.g. political vote was in a way a 'reward' to balance the fact that men (not women) had the responsibility to fight/protect their city from invaders. If you lose in war either you die or become slave. That were the (Machiavellian) rules of that era. So I guess I would have to remove this part from the first paragraph. Any rejections by anyone? A.Cython (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Illiberal democracy" implies that any issue is subject to majority vote, i.e. nothing equivalent to a Bill of Rights or to an independent judiciary to enforce them. In any case, I don't think this idea belongs in the lede. Kauffner (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think Fareed Zakaria is such a great democracy scholar either, that we need to use him as a source. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Power held by 'the people" ?

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)

Not independent...

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)

One man's Democracy is another man's death  ?

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)